Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

So SVFR rules apply when transiting the Class C and Class D airspaces. After exiting the Class D, is the helo pilot required to adhere to normal cloud clearances? Operating in that area the Class E airspace begins 700' AGL correct? With an 1100 AGL Overcast it would be impossible to operate in the Class E adhering to VFR cloud clearances, as being 500 feet below the clouds would put you below the Class E, in which case you would be in Class G and need to remain clear of clouds with 1 mile vis, correct? Just making sure I understand the legal operation of this type of flight....I understand the SVFR rules are slightly different for helicopters as well...?
 
FlyingMonkey said:
So SVFR rules apply when transiting the Class C and Class D airspaces. After exiting the Class D, is the helo pilot required to adhere to normal cloud clearances? Operating in that area the Class E airspace begins 700' AGL correct? With an 1100 AGL Overcast it would be impossible to operate in the Class E adhering to VFR cloud clearances, as being 500 feet below the clouds would put you below the Class E, in which case you would be in Class G and need to remain clear of clouds with 1 mile vis, correct? Just making sure I understand the legal operation of this type of flight....I understand the SVFR rules are slightly different for helicopters as well...?
Click to expand...

I believe the only material difference for helicopters is that night SVFR requires a fixed wing aircraft to be IFR equipped with an IFR rated PIC, whereas neither of those apply to helicopters.

The pilot was asked by the VNY controller to confirm he was VFR as he exited her Class D airspace (which ends the SVFR transition clearance) and she handed him off to Socal. He replied he was 1500 and VFR.

I'm starting to wonder if we have a pilot that flew that region and that route quite frequently over his career, with more than a few experiences flying low ceilings in that coastal area? Perhaps a classic normalization of deviance situation?
 
Last edited:
FlyingMonkey said:
So SVFR rules apply when transiting the Class C and Class D airspaces. After exiting the Class D, is the helo pilot required to adhere to normal cloud clearances? Operating in that area the Class E airspace begins 700' AGL correct? With an 1100 AGL Overcast it would be impossible to operate in the Class E adhering to VFR cloud clearances, as being 500 feet below the clouds would put you below the Class E, in which case you would be in Class G and need to remain clear of clouds with 1 mile vis, correct? Just making sure I understand the legal operation of this type of flight....I understand the SVFR rules are slightly different for helicopters as well...?
Click to expand...

You've got it right, same as an airplane in Class E. The differences are Class G and SVFR.

But you're implying he was in Class E, and he may have been, but remember those are AGL. EDIT: After he left, Van Nuys, was he 700' or more AGL? I don't know, haven't really looked at the data.

Also, I haven't looked at the sectional for that area so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is Class E there and starts at 700' and not 1200.

If he did remain below 700' AGL then he would have been in Class G with vis req down to 1/2 mile.
 
Last edited:
SToL said:
You've got it right, same as an airplane in Class E. The differences are Class G and SVFR.

But you're implying he was in Class E, and he may have been, but remember those are AGL. Was he ever 700' or more AGL? I don't know, haven't really looked at the data.

Also, I haven't looked at the sectional for that area so I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt that it is Class E there and starts at 700' and not 1200.

If he did remain below 700' AGL then he would have been in Class G with vis req down to 1/2 mile.
Click to expand...

VNY is 802 ft elevation, he was reporting first 1400 and then 1500 during the BUR Class C and the VNY Class D SVFR transit.
 
Looks like an engineer provides a detailed description of what happened just before crash. He describes the helicopter hovering inside cloud cover, possibly looking for visual/nav reference just prior to hitting the terrain:

 
OK, I'll be the idiot and ask:p

Government helicopters in my area consistently fly at 400-500 AGL directly over the city (have seen them at eye level with 1-10 over the river near UTEP which would put them at 50-100). Am guessing helicopters don't have the same "populated areas" restriction that we do to clear by 1000 over structures?
 
Gordon Freeman said:
Looks like an engineer provides a detailed description of what happened just before crash. He describes the helicopter hovering inside cloud cover, possibly looking for visual/nav reference just prior to hitting the terrain:

Click to expand...
A "sound engineer". Like most witnesses, I'd take anything he says with a packet of salt.
 
danhagan said:
OK, I'll be the idiot and ask:p

Government helicopters in my area consistently fly at 400-500 AGL directly over the city (have seen them at eye level with 1-10 over the river near UTEP which would put them at 50-100). Am guessing helicopters don't have the same "populated areas" restriction that we do to clear by 1000 over structures?
Click to expand...
§ 91.119 Minimum safe altitudes: General.
Except when necessary for takeoff or landing, no person may operate an aircraft below the following altitudes:

(a) Anywhere. An altitude allowing, if a power unit fails, an emergency landing without undue hazard to personsor property on the surface.

(b) Over congested areas. Over any congested area of a city, town, or settlement, or over any open air assembly of persons, an altitude of 1,000 feet above the highest obstacle within a horizontal radius of 2,000 feet of the aircraft.

(c) Over other than congested areas. An altitude of 500 feet above the surface, except over open water or sparsely populated areas. In those cases, the aircraft may not be operated closer than 500 feet to any person, vessel, vehicle, or structure.

(d) Helicopters, powered parachutes, and weight-shift-control aircraft. If the operation is conducted without hazard to persons or property on the surface -

(1) A helicopter may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section, provided each person operating the helicopter complies with any routes or altitudes specifically prescribed for helicopters by the FAA; and

(2) A powered parachute or weight-shift-control aircraft may be operated at less than the minimums prescribed in paragraph (c) of this section.
Click to expand...
 
danhagan said:
OK, I'll be the idiot and ask:p

Government helicopters in my area consistently fly at 400-500 AGL directly over the city (have seen them at eye level with 1-10 over the river near UTEP which would put them at 50-100). Am guessing helicopters don't have the same "populated areas" restriction that we do to clear by 1000 over structures?
Click to expand...

Depends whether the operation is Part 91 or Part 135. 91 only states must be done without hazard, 135 is 300 over congested area.
 
Gordon Freeman said:
Looks like an engineer provides a detailed description of what happened just before crash. He describes the helicopter hovering inside cloud cover, possibly looking for visual/nav reference just prior to hitting the terrain:

Click to expand...

He has a TWA hat on so how can we doubt him?
Looking like CFIT....
 
Salty said:
A "sound engineer". Like most witnesses, I'd take anything he says with a packet of salt.
Click to expand...
Hunt-man said:
He has a TWA hat on so how can we doubt him?
Looking like CFIT....
Click to expand...

He seems more intelligent than the average witness with some background in aviation based on his phraseology. No need for you to be a smart a$$. His recount seems relevant to the discussion.
 
Gordon Freeman said:
He seems more intelligent than the average witness with some background in aviation based on his phraseology. No need for you to be a smart a$$. His recount seems relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

I don't know about @Salty but I enjoy a bit of smart assery....
 
mr_happyland said:
What is in that circled area? Camarillo is further west of there.
Click to expand...
Based on audio FAA controllers had them in a holding pattern because a Citation jet was inbound to one of the nearby fields as well as a missed approach by another aircraft. Hence maybe why we see the red circles
 
Circles on FR24 pic are the hold outside C space. Red circles are ~ mamba academy, well before CMA.
Tony Long said:
Based on audio FAA controllers had them in a holding pattern because a Citation jet was inbound to one of the nearby fields as well as a missed approach by another aircraft. Hence maybe why we see the red circles
Click to expand...

Sent from my SM-G960U1 using Tapatalk
 
Edited this post as it had to do with a video that was removed. See below post.
 
Last edited:
@MBDiagMan the video you posted is a fake and had been posted previously.

I removed that as we have removed other links to it.
 
Gordon Freeman said:
He seems more intelligent than the average witness with some background in aviation based on his phraseology. No need for you to be a smart a$$. His recount seems relevant to the discussion.
Click to expand...

Only part is he said it was hovering and then started to head over the mountains, FlightAware doesn’t show this, they conflict.


Tom
 
Ted DuPuis said:
@MBDiagMan the video you posted is a fake and had been posted previously.

I removed that as we have removed other links to it.
Click to expand...

Thanks Ted! I apologize for causing you the trouble. I was suspicious of it and wanted to know if it could be legitimate. It amazes me that so much bogus stuff is circulating regarding this.
 
kgruber said:
Zobayan was instrument rated.
Click to expand...

When I read things like this, it always baffles my mind. :(

https://people.com/sports/pilot-identified-in-kobe-bryant-helicopter-crash-ara-zobayan/
"A source tells PEOPLE that Zobayan was “extremely experienced” as a pilot.
“He had a lot of respect for flying and would never take risks. He knew the valley very well. The area where they crashed was not a new area for him. He was very familiar with that area,” the source says. “It’s just such a shock. There are no words to express how much Ara will be missed and how sad everyone is about the passengers that died. It’s just such a painful tragedy. So many families affected and so much pain.”

In addition to being a flight instructor, Zobayan had 20 years of experience flying in Southern California, according to The New York Times."
 
redtail said:
When I read things like this, it always baffles my mind. :(

https://people.com/sports/pilot-identified-in-kobe-bryant-helicopter-crash-ara-zobayan/
"A source tells PEOPLE that Zobayan was “extremely experienced” as a pilot.
“He had a lot of respect for flying and would never take risks. He knew the valley very well. The area where they crashed was not a new area for him. He was very familiar with that area,” the source says. “It’s just such a shock. There are no words to express how much Ara will be missed and how sad everyone is about the passengers that died. It’s just such a painful tragedy. So many families affected and so much pain.”

In addition to being a flight instructor, Zobayan had 20 years of experience flying in Southern California, according to The New York Times."
Click to expand...
As experienced of a pilot as he might’ve been, he was a poor decision maker, unfortunately. Yes, it’s likely too early to be making that claim, but I say that with the information that we currently have.

Although it was said that he had great knowledge of the local area, when terrain and mountain tops are obscured by fog and low visibility, that knowledge no longer means anything and the disorientation that follows makes things that much worse.
 
Ryanb said:
As experienced of a pilot as he might’ve been, he was a poor decision maker, unfortunately. Yes, it’s likely too early to be making that claim, but I say that with the information that we currently have.

Although it was said that he had great knowledge of the local area, when terrain and mountain tops are obscured by fog and low visibility, that knowledge no longer means anything and the disorientation that follows makes things that much worse.
Click to expand...

He may have made 10,000 good decisions until this one. Only takes once.

Wouldn't discount the external factor of such a VIP either.
 
cowman said:
He may have made 10,000 good decisions until this one. Only takes once.

Wouldn't discount the external factor of such a VIP either.
Click to expand...
Got that right!
 
Ryanb said:
As experienced of a pilot as he might’ve been, he was a poor decision maker, unfortunately. Yes, it’s likely too early to be making that claim, but I say that with the information that we currently have.

Although it was said that he had great knowledge of the local area, when terrain and mountain tops are obscured by fog and low visibility, that knowledge no longer means anything and the disorientation that follows makes things that much worse.
Click to expand...
True, but I find it hard to believe that in 20 years of flying in the exact same area, this was his first encounter with low clouds, fog and poor visibility.
 
The helo was operated by Island Express. Pilot may be IFR rated, but was the operator approved to conduct IFR ops in the S76? I'd imagine so, but perhaps if it wasn't, it would be an additional pressure on the pilot to avoid going IFR.

Interestingly enough, their website isn't available at the moment.

Separately, I saw them fly over me that morning. I happened to be golfing at Mile Square in Fountain Valley and noticed them fly overhead. They were pretty low, but nothing unusual for helos in the area when the ceilings are lower. I heard it well before I saw it and thought it was something coming in to the Los Alamitos base nearby.
 
redtail said:
True, but I find it hard to believe that in 20 years of flying in the exact same area, this was his first encounter with low clouds, fog and poor visibility.
Click to expand...
But the witness said that someone else told him that in 17 years this is the thickest and lowest the fog has ever been. Can’t argue with that.
 
Ryanb said:
when terrain and mountain tops are obscured by fog and low visibility, that knowledge no longer means anything
Click to expand...
FWIW: the one thing nobody knows is what the pilot actually saw out his windshield. Just because people on the ground could not see him doesn't always mean he was 0/0. He may have been between a fog layer and the cloud layer and got caught in a sucker hole. The only thing we know 100% at this time is that his actions to get out of this one didn't work for whatever reason. I'm sure you would want that same initial consideration by others should you unfortunately fly into a rock cloud one day.;)
 
redtail said:
True, but I find it hard to believe that in 20 years of flying in the exact same area, this was his first encounter with low clouds, fog and poor visibility.
Click to expand...
Remember, you can do something a thousand times, but it only takes one time of pushing the limit too far for unfortunate consequences to take place. I would bet that he flew similar routes in similar conditions many times in the past and was able to get away with it, so that complacency of ‘getting away with it’ gave him the assurance that it was okay to do it again.
 
Salty said:
But the witness said that someone else told him that in 17 years this is the thickest and lowest the fog has ever been. Can’t argue with that.
Click to expand...
Ok, even so....how could.. "that knowledge no longer mean anything" ? (post#242).

If anything, I would think that knowledge means EVERYTHING!
 
Zeldman said:
Somewhere, and of course I can't find it now, one article stated that the helicopter was under direction of ATC.

A total erroneous statement, but it is, or was, out there in print.

No matter what the cause, it is still sad to see that children lost their lives among the others.
Click to expand...
^^^this^^^^

I read earlier in the thread ATC said they were to low for FF.
 
Last edited:
Ryanb said:
Remember, you can do something a thousand times, but it only takes one time of pushing the limit too far for unfortunate consequences to take place. I would bet that he flew similar routes in similar conditions many times in the past and was able to get away with it, so that complacency of ‘getting away with it’ gave him the assurance that it was okay to do it again.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Which is why it baffles MY mind.
 
Salty said:
But the witness said that someone else told him that in 17 years this is the thickest and lowest the fog has ever been. Can’t argue with that.
Click to expand...

Geographically farther south, but same type of conditions delayed the start of Sunday's PGA round at Torrey Pines (golf course) by over two hours because the fog was too thick.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top