Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

[misteryan]

The woman has a net worth of $600M, what is to be gained by wrecking all of the lives of the little people?

Would you be less upset at someone who killed your spouse edit: and child because you had enough money? That seems kind of a weird argument.

 

[RyanB]

Tch. Incomplete quote. "For the love of money is the root of all evil...." Money itself isn't evil, it's what people do to get it.

Ron Wanttaja

Thanks... I was just recalling from memory.

 

[misteryan]

What surprised me about this story is that the helicopter company is still in operation. I would have expected them just to declare bankruptcy and dissolve.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

Would you be less upset at someone who killed your spouse edit: and child because you had enough money? That seems kind of a weird argument.

Someone killed my father through their direct negligence. I never considered suing the man for anything. He lives with the knowledge he is responsible for another person death. That’s enough for me. I pray for him to heal from that trauma. Everyone responsible for the deaths in that helicopter died in the crash. The Bryant’s suing everyone under the sun is about anger and making someone pay for their loss. It’s not about money. It’s much more petty than that...

 

[Bill]

Would you be less upset at someone who killed your spouse edit: and child because you had enough money? That seems kind of a weird argument.

If destroying more lives makes you less upset, so be it. *shrug*

 

[misteryan]

I had someone kill my father through their direct negligence. I never considered suing the man for anything. That man lives with the knowledge he is responsible for another person death. That’s enough for me. I pray for him to heal from that trauma. Everyone responsible for the deaths in that helicopter died in the crash. The Bryant’s suing everyone under the sun is about anger and making someone pay for their loss. It’s not about money. It’s much more petty than that...

I respect your position and decision, and I'm sorry for the loss of your father. However, just as you have the right to make the determination that you did, so does Mrs. Bryant. As someone who also prays, I won't judge her for that.

 

[misteryan]

If destroying more lives makes you less upset, so be it. *shrug*

That's a strawman.

 

[Bill]

That's a strawman.

Touche

I just don't agree with what she's doing. Causing more pain and suffering and hardship is not empire building.

 

[misteryan]

Touche

I just don't agree with what she's doing. Causing more pain and suffering and hardship is not empire building.

She met her future husband when she was 17, and was engaged to him at 18. I have nothing but empathy for her. She lost her husband and child. Take a way all the fame and the money and profile and attention, and she's just a grieving widow and mother.

And I'm not pre-judging any of the legal cases surrounding this, but if you go into business, you have to understand the risks as well as the potential benefits. If you can't handle the prospect of having to deal with a high-profile lawsuit when your company provides transportation to high-profile individuals, you're in the wrong business.

 

[midwestpa24]

I had someone kill my father through their direct negligence. I never considered suing the man for anything. That man lives with the knowledge he is responsible for another person death. That’s enough for me. I pray for him to heal from that trauma. Everyone responsible for the deaths in that helicopter died in the crash. The Bryant’s suing everyone under the sun is about anger and making someone pay for their loss. It’s not about money. It’s much more petty than that...

I also agree. These days it seems our legal system has become one of the many stages of grief. People either sue the heck out of someone, anyone, they can try to blame for their loss, or they become a champion for XYZ cause and get some bill passed in the name of their loved one. Both accomplish nothing, and just pass the burden onto others.

One I can think of in particular that happened near here. A young child was killed getting off of a school bus. The person that hit her was driving illegally, legally blind, and high on drugs at the time. Never realized he hit her. He was tried and convicted of manslaughter. Her family's crusade led to a new law, named after her of course, that raised the penalties for driving around a stopped school bus. Ok fine, but tell me this. Does changing the fine from $100 to $500 change the outcome. Would it prevent another person from driving high and blind and hitting a child. Not at all. Just another law on the books, but they feel like their child's life meant something.

 

[RyanB]

I respect your position and decision, and I'm sorry for the loss of your father. However, just as you have the right to make the determination that you did, so does Mrs. Bryant. As someone who also prays, I won't judge her for that.

Account just a few days old and already stirring the pot around around here.

 

[kyleb]

Would you be less upset at someone who killed your spouse edit: and child because you had enough money? That seems kind of a weird argument.

Problem is, the pilot is dead. Kobe’s wife can’t get vengeance against him. She’s punishing his widow who is suffering the same grief and trauma and Bryant is. But without $600m in the bank.

Beyond that, whatever she gets from the widow isn’t going to improve Ms Bryant’s life, but will wreck the life of the pilot’s widow, even beyond the hardships she’s already experiencing.

 

[misteryan]

Problem is, the pilot is dead. Kobe’s wife can’t get vengeance against him. She’s punishing his widow who is suffering the same grief and trauma and Bryant is. But without $600m in the bank.

Beyond that, whatever she gets from the widow isn’t going to improve Ms Bryant’s life, but will wreck the life of the pilot’s widow, even beyond the hardships she’s already experiencing.

Mr. Zobayan wasn't married. And I do not agree with your characterization of her motives as "vengeance" and "punishing his widow," notwithstanding the fact that he does not have one.

 

[Bill]

Problem is, the pilot is dead. Kobe’s wife can’t get vengeance against him. She’s punishing his widow who is suffering the same grief and trauma and Bryant is. But without $600m in the bank.

Beyond that, whatever she gets from the widow isn’t going to improve Ms Bryant’s life, but will wreck the life of the pilot’s widow, even beyond the hardships she’s already experiencing.

My thoughts, but more eloquently put.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

I think that if the pilot was negligent and incautious, then these lawsuits serve a good purpose. They serve, when all finally settled and done, to assign blame and deter future reckless behavior.

Even if this particular pilot was not married, it will send a message to other pilots who may have estates and families — don’t be reckless because it may come back to haunt your loved ones.

 

[weilke]

I think that if the pilot was negligent and incautious, then these lawsuits serve a good purpose. They serve, when all finally settled and done, to assign blame and deter future reckless behavior.

Even if this particular pilot was not married, it will send a message to other pilots who may have estates and families — don’t be reckless because it may come back to haunt your loved ones.

If dying in a flaming wreck is not a sufficient deterrent, I am not sure the risk of a civil suit is going to change behavior.

The only people whose behavior may need changing are the suits behind the charter company.

 

[Tarheelpilot]

I respect your position and decision, and I'm sorry for the loss of your father. However, just as you have the right to make the determination that you did, so does Mrs. Bryant. As someone who also prays, I won't judge her for that.

I’m not judging her either. Its a hell of an emotional roller coaster. I was making an observation. Not passing judgment.

 

[kyleb]

The only people whose behavior may need changing are the suits behind the charter company.

Why do you say that? Sounds like the pilot was experienced and (presumably) well trained and made a bad decision that cost him and others their lives. I realize the company is ultimately responsible for the actions of its employees, but I'm not aware of any misdeeds on the part of "the suits".

 

[bflynn]

Would you be less upset at someone who killed your spouse edit: and child because you had enough money? That seems kind of a weird argument.

I would not.

But I also would not take it out on someone who didn't actually do anything. By suing the pilot's state estate, Ms Bryant gains little of importance to herself, but hurts the pilot's widow. It gives every appearance of taking vengeance against an innocent person.

As far as the charter company, the corporation is already dead, they're just waiting to liquidate assets to give money to Bryant. The helicopters will be sold to someone or maybe already have been sold and are hauling some new millionaire around the LA basin under a new name. She isn't preventing this from happening again. Even if she can somehow pierce the corporate shield, other companies are unlikely to make significant changes. Certainly not changes that will prevent the next pilot from flying into the clouds and crashing because when that happens it is solely the pilot who is at fault.

She is causing a lot of people fuss who really aren't the ones responsible. That was the pilot, who made the decision to fly fast that day and had an IMC CFIT accident.

 

[Bell206]

The only people whose behavior may need changing are the suits behind the charter company.

I think we will find that it goes a bit deeper as there is history between Kobe and the pilot. Unfortunately, sometimes owners/passengers select their providers based on personal "perfomance" vs personal proficiency. Just read the Cline 139 docket and dozens of others. As to the reasons why people sue in these cases... it's been my experience it can be for an A-Z list of reasons. And I've never faulted any of them for their reason even if I had a direct connection to the incident. However, where I draw the line is when they, their attorney's that is, want to include a kitchen sink list of defendents.

 

[weilke]

Why do you say that? Sounds like the pilot was experienced and (presumably) well trained and made a bad decision that cost him and others their lives. I realize the company is ultimately responsible for the actions of its employees, but I'm not aware of any misdeeds on the part of "the suits".

A couple of things that come to mind where management responsibility comes into play:
- while the pilot was instrument rated, there was no provision for him to remain fully instrument current. The suits are who would have to pay for those flight hours or sim time (this is mentioned in some of the staff interviews)*.
- He had 8300 hours of which 5000+ was shuttling to the islands and offshore platforms 1200odd hours on the S76, all with the same company, all doing the celebrity shuttle thing in the LA basin and oil platform flights. 0 hrs actual instrument experience#. I assume that for a price, there are pilots with more instrument experience available.
- read the staff interviews regarding the safety culture of the company. This is just a comment from the operations group report: There is a ‘real culture’ and ‘window dressing’. In the line pilot’s opinion, the company said they had a safety program, but it was not, by any means a real SMS or how is should be run.


Its easy to say 'pilot flew into a mountain, bad pilot, dont do that again'. The reason these accidents are worth investigating is that there are things that can potentially be changed going forward.








* similar setup to the MSP Trooper2 crash in 2008, minimal paper 'currency' maintained and helo ended up in the trees when weather forced an ILS approach into Andrews.
# I may be wrong on that and that was his experience when he got hired, but as the company from what I could gather was a VFR operator, he wouldn't have had many opportunities to gain that experience in their employ

 

[weilke]

I think we will find that it goes a bit deeper as there is history between Kobe and the pilot. Unfortunately, sometimes owners/passengers select their providers based on personal "perfomance" vs personal proficiency. Just read the Cline 139 docket and dozens of others.

Yup, rich people like 'their guy' who does things they want without ever telling them 'sorry sir, we wont get there today'.

The company had reassigned a different pilot off the Kobe contract because he had to return to base one time to refuel. That'll teach others ;-)

 

[WDD]

‘Money is the root of all evil’ 1 Timothy 6:10

holds true time and time again.

Close "The love of money is the root of all evil". But who knows if that is driving the surviving widow? IDK Besides, she's not the one suing some 9-5 Joe working in ATC.

 

[Lindberg]

I doubt Mrs. Bryant needs the maybe few $100k that she could possible squeeze out of the pilot's widow, who is probably just as heartbroken as she is. I hope she'll take the high road and leaves her alone instead of seeking revenge for her husband's death.

Revenge? Absurd.

 

[bflynn]

The company did not operate IFR flights. If you want to change something to make this less likely to happen again, get rid of all VFR charters and provide unemployment support for all the people that are going to lose their jobs when prices go through the roof.

 

[misteryan]

I would not.

But I also would not take it out on someone who didn't actually do anything. By suing the pilot's state estate, Ms Bryant gains little of importance to herself, but hurts the pilot's widow. It gives every appearance of taking vengeance against an innocent person.

As far as the charter company, the corporation is already dead, they're just waiting to liquidate assets to give money to Bryant. The helicopters will be sold to someone or maybe already have been sold and are hauling some new millionaire around the LA basin under a new name. She isn't preventing this from happening again. Even if she can somehow pierce the corporate shield, other companies are unlikely to make significant changes. Certainly not changes that will prevent the next pilot from flying into the clouds and crashing because when that happens it is solely the pilot who is at fault.

She is causing a lot of people fuss who really aren't the ones responsible. That was the pilot, who made the decision to fly fast that day and had an IMC CFIT accident.

Again, the pilot doesn't have a widow. And it seems like you've already established all the facts. The situation in which "other companies are unlikely to make significant changes" is exactly the one you're advocating, which is not holding anyone responsible. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where a company could kill its customers and face no repercussions.

The lawsuits are about holding people accountable for what happened, and given the outcome here - the deaths of 9 people - are absolutely justified. I find the backlash against the victim here, which is Mrs. Bryant, wholly distasteful. Are the families of the less wealthy people who died in this accident more moral than her because they don't have as much money? As I'm sure all of them have sued as well. And rightfully so. (And for that matter, many may wind up suing Mr. Bryant's estate, if they haven't already, which may well be a large part of her motivation here as well - not just seeking restitution for her loss, but rather protecting her husband's estate from other victims. In the end, the one with the big pockets in this case is her, not anyone else).

 

[bflynn]

Hmmm, that the pilot wasn't formally married is an update. They lived together for years and had two children, but apparently just never filed the papers. That's probably good for her as it protects her assets, but she may find herself dragged into this by others claiming common law marriage because in CA, the assets of a spouse can be pulled into a wrongful death lawsuit.

I don't want to live in a world where a company can kill it's customers either, but I especially don't want to live in a world where one employee makes a fatal mistake and they execute everyone at the company. This crash was the fault of the pilot, end of story. The charter company had a VFR only certificate and the pilot violated that. No amount of placing blame on corporate officers can prevent a pilot from going VFR to IMC if the pilot flies the way this guy did.

I'm all for a lawsuit for the purpose of bringing change, but not as a money grab. No amount of money can restore a loved one or ease the grief, in fact the stress of a lawsuit tends to extend the grieving process.

What change do you propose this lawsuit is going to cause? To shut down helicopter charter companies? That is the only way I know of to prevent future helicopter charter crashes.

 

[misteryan]

I don't want to live in a world where a company can kill it's customers either, but I especially don't want to live in a world where one employee makes a fatal mistake and they execute everyone at the company. This crash was the fault of the pilot, end of story. The charter company had a VFR only certificate and the pilot violated that. No amount of placing blame on corporate officers can prevent a pilot from going VFR to IMC if the pilot flies the way this guy did.

There's no way to make that determination at this point, hence the lawsuit.

I'm all for a lawsuit for the purpose of bringing change, but not as a money grab.

None of us is in a position to determine anyone's motives here. I doubt a woman worth $600,000,000 is motivated by more money.

What change do you propose this lawsuit is going to cause? To shut down helicopter charter companies? That is the only way I know of to prevent future helicopter charter crashes.

Virtually every regulation in the FARs is written in blood, a good many the result of lawsuits. I can think of any number of changes that might improve safety, none of which involve shutting down helicopter charter companies.

I think it's fair to let the process play out.

 

[luvflyin]

Again, the pilot doesn't have a widow. And it seems like you've already established all the facts. The situation in which "other companies are unlikely to make significant changes" is exactly the one you're advocating, which is not holding anyone responsible. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to live in a world where a company could kill its customers and face no repercussions.

The lawsuits are about holding people accountable for what happened, and given the outcome here - the deaths of 9 people - are absolutely justified. I find the backlash against the victim here, which is Mrs. Bryant, wholly distasteful. Are the families of the less wealthy people who died in this accident more moral than her because they don't have as much money? As I'm sure all of them have sued as well. And rightfully so. (And for that matter, many may wind up suing Mr. Bryant's estate, if they haven't already, which may well be a large part of her motivation here as well - not just seeking restitution for her loss, but rather protecting her husband's estate from other victims. In the end, the one with the big pockets in this case is her, not anyone else).

The big pocket in this latest suit, the helicopter company naming the controllers as responsible, is us, the taxpayers.

 

[misteryan]

The big pocket in this latest suit, the helicopter company naming the controllers as responsible, is us, the taxpayers.

They have as much chance in that as I do winning Miss Universe.

 

[Llk]

I have zero compassion for the helicopter having dealt with them before. I also met the pilot several times and sadly he, too, was a jerkhole. The company isn’t just greedy but they also are not good community partners.

I’m this case, the non-IFR current pilot with no actual IFR experience in a non current IFR S76 made a choice to launch into marginal VFR conditions and consciously entered IFR conditions by intentionally trying to skim using a special VFR clearance while operating from a 135 operation that had no IFR ticket. His dispatcher should have known better if they valued high profile clients. This is typical of how they operate.

Let alone Bryant’s wife burn the whole operation to the ground, auction off their helicopters, and sell their pads for pennies on the dollar or better yet, make them public.

 

[PeterNSteinmetz]

Let alone Bryant’s wife burn the whole operation to the ground, auction off their helicopters, and sell their pads for pennies on the dollar or better yet, make them public.

Very interesting first hand knowledge.

 

[Juliet Hotel]

Why do you say that? Sounds like the pilot was experienced and (presumably) well trained and made a bad decision that cost him and others their lives. I realize the company is ultimately responsible for the actions of its employees, but I'm not aware of any misdeeds on the part of "the suits".

I would expect the lawyers will be looking hard at the company policies regarding weather mins and their disciplinary policy for pilots who violate as well as their history of enforcing those policies. If they can show that the company policies were insufficient to ensure the safety of the public or if they can show the company did not enforce their own policies, they will likely be able to motivate a jury to give a large award that will likely bankrupt the company. Happens in trucking all the time.

 

[3393RP]

Why didn't Bryant have a personal risk management advisor? That person could have advised the purchase or lease of a new twin engine two pilot IFR platform helicopter, and the employment of pilots with impeccable records and copious amounts of experience. Alternatively, a professional Part 121 flight organization could have been engaged.

In either case, a flight standards manual could have been written, including requirements for pilot training, flight ops, etc.

All this could have been avoided for a few million dollars a year. This happens time after time. Chris Cline, a billionaire, killed himself, his daughter, and her friends so he could employ a couple of pilots he was comfortable with. Dale Earnhardt Jr almost killed himself and his family for the same reason.

Instead, Mrs Bryant is left with the sad vehicle of a lawsuit that won't bring back her husband or daughter, nor will it restore her companionship with Mr Bryant or his earning capabilities. It will, however, result in the demise of a second rate helicopter charter outfit that her husband never should have hired.

Tell me again who is to blame here?

 

[Lindberg]

Tell me again who is to blame here?

Still almost certainly the guy who flew a group of people into the side of a mountain.

 

[3393RP]

Still almost certainly the guy who flew a group of people into the side of a mountain.

If I use a cheap dry cleaners down on the corner to restore and preserve my wife's wedding dress for our 50th anniversary and they destroy it, should 100% of the blame be apportioned to the store?

 

[weilke]

In either case, a flight standards manual could have been written, including requirements for pilot training, flight ops, etc.

All these things existed for the 'Kobe, Inc' contract. The operator had also undergone safety audits contracted by Exxon and PG&E.

 

[weilke]

They have as much chance in that as I do winning Miss Universe.

The FAA has paid settlements in at least one other case where the quality of ATC services provided to a helicopter was below what can be expected. I dont see how the controllers in this case could have done anything different, but that all depends on how you package it for presentation to a jury.

 

[Tantalum]

Would you be less upset at someone who killed your spouse edit: and child because you had enough money? That seems kind of a weird argument.

I think there are two things here.. using the term "kill" implies that the pilot intentionally acted maliciously so as to take someone's life. I'm pretty sure the pilot, just like everyone else, would have loved to have gone home after work, eaten dinner, and not died. The other part is the money.. we tend to live in a world now that is void of bad things and accidents just happening. No matter what, someone is always to blame for your suffering, and the remedy for your suffering is $$$$. Since the person is already "rolling in it" I really don't know what they aim to solve by the suit. We already have have laws and regulations designed to make flying as safe as reasonably possible.. the only thing a suit like this can bring about is tying up the courts, costing lot of money, and potentially making aviation that much more expensive and less accessible to people. But back to my original point.. I don't think "kill" is the right word here

She met her future husband when she was 17, and was engaged to him at 18. I have nothing but empathy for her. She lost her husband and child. Take a way all the fame and the money and profile and attention, and she's just a grieving widow and mother.

Sure.. but how is suing the operator going to change any of that? All your doing is making other people suffer too, or looking for money.. that's what makes it feel petty

I also agree. These days it seems our legal system has become one of the many stages of grief. People either sue the heck out of someone, anyone, they can try to blame for their loss, or they become a champion for XYZ cause and get some bill passed in the name of their loved one. Both accomplish nothing, and just pass the burden onto others.

EXACTLY! Accidents and bad things sometimes happen

 

[Tantalum]

It will result in the demise of a second date helicopter charter outfit that her husband never should have hired.

But isn't that why we have laws, rules, and regulations? If the charter company is in violation of said regs is it not up to the government to levy them inoperable?