GalaxyFlyer wrote:

The NTSB has loads of tools to look collate the ADS, radar data, plus metallurgical analysis of the evidence plus any video subject to lab analysis to plot the final minutes of the flight. Those sp”spikes” will be analyzed and smoothed based on the physics of flight. Trying to run your own investigation with open source information is not very productive. The investigation team will spend a year pouring over every aspect and usually finds some surprises and some obvious causal factors.

I definitely agree with you. In fact, the purpose of my little exercise (I thought I'd made it clear in my post, but probably not, or not enough) was precisely to encourage people not to jump to conclusions, but to let the NTSB do its job. Just about everybody here seems to have concluded that this accident was the result of some form of pilot error. Maybe so, but for the little that we know at this point in time, other causes beyond pilot error are possible.

flybucky wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

There are comments on PPRUNE that FlightRadar24 data is not reliable in that sort of terrain? Everybody here seems to treat FR24 data like it's gospel but I wonder?

dragon6172 wrote:

Flight tracking websites - By default, they may only save/use the ADS-B data like every 30 seconds or 1 minute (otherwise too much data for them). This can lead to misleading conclusions because they interpolate or smooth the graph with very sparse data points. That's fine for normal, smooth flights. But when something goes wrong, the flight tracking sites may not show it because the data points are too sparse. Thankfully, FR24 will usually publish the granular data for major incidents. That gives the ADS-B data about every 2s.

I run a FR24 station, not in this area though. ADS-B is transmitting data sets twice a second from the aircraft. Every 5 seconds my receiver sends data to FR24s servers, but it only sends the latest data set so there is a lot in between being dumped. But lets say 5 second intervals.. that's the acuracy you have on FR24.

The raw data you can download from FR24 is just a relay of data from the ADS-B transmitter in the aircraft so that is for sure true up to that point. What is being presented on the web page or in the app to make it smooth in way of interpolation etc is a different story. Dont know about that, but it's hardly relevant in this case. The CSV/KML-file data is correct.

LA Medical Examiners office has listed the pilots cause of death as blunt trauma.
Incapacitation due to a medical incident now seems highly unlikely.
https://mec.lacounty.gov/case-detail/?c ... 2020-00803

Leeloo wrote:

ADS-B is transmitting data sets twice a second from the aircraft.

Hmm, how come these 2 data points are only 0.1s apart then? This is from the FR24 granular data csv.
17:45:22Z.214
17:45:22Z.314

Every 5 seconds my receiver sends data to FR24s servers, but it only sends the latest data set so there is a lot in between being dumped. But lets say 5 second intervals.. that's the acuracy you have on FR24

Ah, you're right, FR24 regular csv is about 5-6s intervals, not 30-60s as I wrote in the previous post. I think that was FlightAware's track log.

Here's an interesting thing, the last 12 hours of data are stored on the receivers, so for a major incident, FR24 will download the complete data from the receivers. That's how they get the granular data, which is typically 2s apart. I think they can get even shorter than 2s if they use data from multiple receivers.

BTW, do you have to calibrate the time on your ADS-B receiver?

dragon6172 wrote:

It is a guess, but I base it on the fact when you look at the raw data in a spreadsheet format you can see some of those weird spikes coincide with "jumps" backwards on Lat/Long, which would be impossible.

I think you're right. When you look at the raw numbers and see how much time passed, those spikes are not physically possible (like change Speed from 153 to 125 kts in 0.5s). And you're right that the erratic values (Gspeed, Vspeed, Track) coincide at the same data points. There must be a logical explanation for it (as opposed to randomly erratic), but we might never know since there's no FDR to compare.

The NTSB will, as in without doubt, recreate the last minutes to impact. The ADS data will be combed thru, eliminate spikes, it’ll be matched with radar plots to cross check, aircraft instruments hold a lot of data when they die, that’ll be used. I was in a military accident 34 years ago, without recorders or radar plots, every detail was teased out of instruments and physical wreckage right down to the impact angles and locations. To the degree a video presentation was made. It will be thoroughly, more thoroughly than a armchair investigator can dream of, investigated and answered.

WIederling wrote:

Vladex wrote:

I will never fly a copter without a parachute at least .

"Wischmopp".
you get a whirling cloth with some "soft and soggy" attached.

no idea about parachuting from a fully functional copter.

but exiting from one that is in uncontrolled erratic flight is a completely different thing.
Then most chopper crashes are "short transition, fast". either (C)FIT or
parts flying away and the chopper follows to the ground tumbling.

You probably won't have the time to exit anyway.

There were/are some intricate schemes around to get rid of the rotor blades
before you can activate an ejection seat and later get saved by a parachute.

autorotation is the helicopter equivalent to a parachute.

I've jumped out of a stationary helo (hired by my skydiving club), a Bell 206 with doors removed, it's fine, almost like BASE jumping but with no obstacle.

I've also stayed in the helo (for pleasure) with the pilot showing off by diving, recovering close to the ground, then high speed very low flight, that was scary.

I've helped remove the doors with the rotor powered so I quickly realized there was no need to be bent like people often do.

Now jumping while crashing, I don't know, I guess if you have a mechanical issue it might work, but if you don't know where up and down are...

flybucky wrote:

Leeloo wrote:

ADS-B is transmitting data sets twice a second from the aircraft.

Hmm, how come these 2 data points are only 0.1s apart then? This is from the FR24 granular data csv.
17:45:22Z.214
17:45:22Z.314

Every 5 seconds my receiver sends data to FR24s servers, but it only sends the latest data set so there is a lot in between being dumped. But lets say 5 second intervals.. that's the acuracy you have on FR24

Ah, you're right, FR24 regular csv is about 5-6s intervals, not 30-60s as I wrote in the previous post. I think that was FlightAware's track log.

Here's an interesting thing, the last 12 hours of data are stored on the receivers, so for a major incident, FR24 will download the complete data from the receivers. That's how they get the granular data, which is typically 2s apart. I think they can get even shorter than 2s if they use data from multiple receivers.

BTW, do you have to calibrate the time on your ADS-B receiver?

The FR24 reciever has it's own GPS from where it get time and position, this is sent together with each set of data.

slvrblt wrote:

I don't think we'll ever know for sure what the final answer is to this tragedy. Lots of good points here in the discussion. I very strongly favor spatial disorientation. I just experienced it, albeit on the ground, not in the air. Nevertheless, I was pretty freaked out, I wouldn't have believed how profound it can be. Here is my experience:

I have made the drive on I-10 from my father-in-laws house in Gulfport to New Orleans and back countless times. Driven in the fog too. But last week, as I made the drive again.....there was heavy fog, more than I've ever seen. In hindsight, I shouldn't have been on the road. It was early in the morning, very few people out, so no big deal, I thought. No traffic, no one to hit. Nope...bad idea.

Coming out of New Orleans, it wasn't bad at all, there was patchy fog, no biggie. But on the approaches to I-10 it began to get worse. And worse. It was hard to make things out, I could barely see. Even though I knew the way, not being able to see landmarks or ground cues found me wandering the lanes as my situational awareness slowly eroded. Once I nearly missed a curve and had to swerve to get back on track. Then I got really scared crossing Lake Ponchartrain. The fog obscured nearly everything. You lose three-dimensional perception, I couldn't see the guardrail, could barely see lane markers.
A couple of times my brain was screaming at me that I was about to go over the guardrail into the water. I slowed WAY down, could finally see some lane markers, and calmed down. Finally I pulled off at a gas station to get some coffee and chill out. Semi tractor trailers were parked all over the side of the exit, and even on the interstate shoulders, position lights glowing and flashers on. ''You're the only stupid idiot driving'' I berated myself. There were a few other cars out and about, but clearly this was not a smart idea.

So, I could understand how this pilot, experienced as he was, could still get disoriented. He's without instrument guidance, and visual cues are disappearing or have gone. In that high-speed dive to the ground, he may have thought he was moving up, to clear the hills, up and out of the trouble's way, fast. Who knows. Once your brain loses its lock on where it is, your senses play nasty tricks on you and the outcome is bad.

I had the same thing happen driving through Franconia Notch in the White Mountains of New Hampshire. The difference was there was no fog till we hit the notch, and we were two lanes of traffic doing 50 mph or more. It was terrifying! Even though it was two dimensions rather than three, since it was a mountain pass there was a lot of pitching and rolling and climbs and descents. At best I could catch glimpses of the white line at the left edge of the left side of the road but was in white out conditions for several seconds at a time. I knew cars were all around me, I saw them as we went into the fog and I could hear them around me. I fully expected to hit someone or be hit by someone at any second and it to all end in a massive pile up. I have no idea how I made it out alive and unscathed.

It seems possible that in the LA area there may be more than one FR24 ground station within range relaying data to their servers. If the upload rate (once every five seconds) is missing some of the helo data stream (two per second), it seems possible that another station may have uploaded it if the uploads from the ground station are not synchronized. I have no idea how FR24 sorts the data .. and time stamps it .. though.

airtechy wrote:

It seems possible that in the LA area there may be more than one FR24 ground station within range relaying data to their servers. If the upload rate (once every five seconds) is missing some of the helo data stream (two per second), it seems possible that another station may have uploaded it if the uploads from the ground station are not synchronized. I have no idea how FR24 sorts the data .. and time stamps it .. though.

It's really uncomplicated. In the LA area you have quite a few receivers i guess. Thing is that a helo on low altitude in the terrain you have there is not picked up by many. ADSB transponders transmit on around 1GHz and obviously line of sight range. The processing takes place in the local reciever, the data sent to FR24 servers are already timestamped and syncronized as it's being sent to them. Each receiver has a local GPS which supplies accurate time and location data. This is sent together with the ADSB transmission packages from the transpoder to FR24...

TimG100 wrote:

I'm hoping to better understand what it means when an operator is said to be "VFR only", as opposed to a pilot or aircraft being "VFR only".

It comes down to check and training capability, aircraft maintenance, and record keeping. This would be defined in their opsspec.

A pilot can be IFR rated however not current, IFR flying not permitted until current.

A helicopter can be built as an IFR, and not maintained to IFR standards, IFR not permitted until all IFR maintenance is completed.

For IFR operations their manuals would specify IFR fuel policy, IFR crew requirements, currency requirements, minimum IFR Wx conditions, IFR charts, IFR plates, FAA regulations etc.

The R in IFR is for rules, those rules are built on the blood of many people who have died in accidents. Many people find the rules too cumbersome for the number of times they are actually needed. It also adds to the overheads that need to be maintained.

TimG100 wrote:

But if the pilot is in deteriorating marginal conditions, could the pilot get an IFR clearance (exercising their authority as PIC to do what's safest, even if potentially getting into trouble with the company), or would they need to declare an emergency with ATC, just as a VFR-only pilot would be expected to do in the same situation?

Should declare an emergency, just like a VFR pilot inadvertently entering cloud.

airtechy wrote:

I have no idea how FR24 sorts the data .. and time stamps it .. though.

I'm assuming that the ADS-B messages are timestamped when they are broadcast from the aircraft. That would be the best way to do it. Then it doesn't matter when any flight tracker receives the data, they just sort by the original timestamp.

flybucky wrote:

I'm assuming that the ADS-B messages are timestamped when they are broadcast from the aircraft. That would be the best way to do it. Then it doesn't matter when any flight tracker receives the data, they just sort by the original timestamp.

ADS-B is not timestamped. See: https://mode-s.org/decode/adsb/introduction.html

Cheers,
Adam

gloom wrote:

ADS-B is not timestamped. See: https://mode-s.org/decode/adsb/introduction.html

thanks for that link. I am absolutely shocked that ADS-B doesn't transmit the timestamp. That opens up the possibility of out of order data points then, because it's up to the receivers to add the timestamp.

Leeloo wrote:

The FR24 reciever has it's own GPS from where it get time and position, this is sent together with each set of data.

The FR24 receivers I have seen are nothing more than a USB TV tuner, so called software defined radio. No GPS.

flybucky wrote:

airtechy wrote:

I have no idea how FR24 sorts the data .. and time stamps it .. though.

I'm assuming that the ADS-B messages are timestamped when they are broadcast from the aircraft.

I don’t think that is a valid assumption, one of the challenges of Multilateration systems is they derive an aircraft's position by calculating the Time Difference of Arrival, and that is not done by the time stamp of a data packet rather matching the packets received by ground receivers that have been time synced similar to GPS principle.

flybucky wrote:

dragon6172 wrote:

It is a guess, but I base it on the fact when you look at the raw data in a spreadsheet format you can see some of those weird spikes coincide with "jumps" backwards on Lat/Long, which would be impossible.

I think you're right. When you look at the raw numbers and see how much time passed, those spikes are not physically possible (like change Speed from 153 to 125 kts in 0.5s). And you're right that the erratic values (Gspeed, Vspeed, Track) coincide at the same data points. There must be a logical explanation for it (as opposed to randomly erratic), but we might never know since there's no FDR to compare.

To reinforce this look at how the data is presented in the below image. See the last few data points "jump" backwards along the track? This was what made me compare those previous graphs with the spikes and the raw data to the below image and made me believe those spikes in the graphs were erroneous.

zeke wrote:

The FR24 receivers I have seen are nothing more than a USB TV tuner, so called software defined radio. No GPS.

The receiver ( hosted by a computer ) is connected to the Internet.
With working NTP ( Network Time Protocol ) you don't need a dedicated GPS.
( and jitter is in the 1..20ms domain.)

zeke wrote:

Leeloo wrote:

The FR24 reciever has it's own GPS from where it get time and position, this is sent together with each set of data.

The FR24 receivers I have seen are nothing more than a USB TV tuner, so called software defined radio. No GPS.

flybucky wrote:

airtechy wrote:

I have no idea how FR24 sorts the data .. and time stamps it .. though.

I'm assuming that the ADS-B messages are timestamped when they are broadcast from the aircraft.

I don’t think that is a valid assumption, one of the challenges of Multilateration systems is they derive an aircraft's position by calculating the Time Difference of Arrival, and that is not done by the time stamp of a data packet rather matching the packets received by ground receivers that have been time synced similar to GPS principle.

The TV SDR-dongle variants are the home made ones running on a Raspberry Pi or such. I have the FR24 which is their own (the majority nowadays) receiver they send out as kits. This include it's own GPS. These are the "F" type on the FR24 stats page. The others are "T" type.

15cfr700 wrote:

LA Medical Examiners office has listed the pilots cause of death as blunt trauma.
Incapacitation due to a medical incident now seems highly unlikely.
https://mec.lacounty.gov/case-detail/?c ... 2020-00803

Interesting development. Yes, a very plausible dark horse theory was pilot stroke, aneurism, massive heart attack. It was very important to know the pilot's medical state prior to impact, if they can.

Highlights from NY Times article: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/30/us/k ... ation.html

Witnesses said cloud were 300 ft AGL. (That matches with ADS-B adjusted altitude data showing the heli was flying as low as 300 ft AGL).

None of the local charter companies are IFR certified. And almost all of them fly single pilot.

------

The clouds sat about 300 feet off the ground, witnesses near the crash scene said.

The limitations on Island Express’s operations are not unusual. Another operator at Van Nuys Airport, where the company is based, said none of the charter operators there have gone to the trouble and expense of winning certification for instrument flight, in part because it is normally so simple to navigate at low altitude in Southern California, with its easy-to-follow freeways and sunny weather.

None of the local charter companies maintain certification that allows them to fly using instruments, said Claudia Lowry, who owns Group 3 Aviation, a charter service and flight school based at the same airport in Van Nuys as Island Express. I.F.R. certification would mean drastically increased training, equipment and insurance requirements. Even local police helicopters do not maintain it, she said.
“It’s not worth it, we don’t fly in that kind of weather anyway,” Ms. Lowry said. “And most of the time the weather is good.”

Island Express and nearly all other companies in the region fly the S-76B almost exclusively with a single pilot, according to operators there. Mr. Deetz said it was rarely necessary to have a second pilot; in fact, he said, two pilots sometimes get in each other’s way. Only a few safety-conscious clients have in the past asked for two pilots, Mr. Deetz said, and Mr. Bryant never did.

zeke wrote:

TimG100 wrote:

I'm hoping to better understand what it means when an operator is said to be "VFR only", as opposed to a pilot or aircraft being "VFR only".

It comes down to check and training capability, aircraft maintenance, and record keeping. This would be defined in their opsspec.

A pilot can be IFR rated however not current, IFR flying not permitted until current.

A helicopter can be built as an IFR, and not maintained to IFR standards, IFR not permitted until all IFR maintenance is completed.

For IFR operations their manuals would specify IFR fuel policy, IFR crew requirements, currency requirements, minimum IFR Wx conditions, IFR charts, IFR plates, FAA regulations etc.

The R in IFR is for rules, those rules are built on the blood of many people who have died in accidents. Many people find the rules too cumbersome for the number of times they are actually needed. It also adds to the overheads that need to be maintained.

TimG100 wrote:

But if the pilot is in deteriorating marginal conditions, could the pilot get an IFR clearance (exercising their authority as PIC to do what's safest, even if potentially getting into trouble with the company), or would they need to declare an emergency with ATC, just as a VFR-only pilot would be expected to do in the same situation?

Should declare an emergency, just like a VFR pilot inadvertently entering cloud.

What help does declaring an emergency do?

dfwjim1 wrote:

zeke wrote:

TimG100 wrote:

I'm hoping to better understand what it means when an operator is said to be "VFR only", as opposed to a pilot or aircraft being "VFR only".

It comes down to check and training capability, aircraft maintenance, and record keeping. This would be defined in their opsspec.

A pilot can be IFR rated however not current, IFR flying not permitted until current.

A helicopter can be built as an IFR, and not maintained to IFR standards, IFR not permitted until all IFR maintenance is completed.

For IFR operations their manuals would specify IFR fuel policy, IFR crew requirements, currency requirements, minimum IFR Wx conditions, IFR charts, IFR plates, FAA regulations etc.

The R in IFR is for rules, those rules are built on the blood of many people who have died in accidents. Many people find the rules too cumbersome for the number of times they are actually needed. It also adds to the overheads that need to be maintained.

TimG100 wrote:

But if the pilot is in deteriorating marginal conditions, could the pilot get an IFR clearance (exercising their authority as PIC to do what's safest, even if potentially getting into trouble with the company), or would they need to declare an emergency with ATC, just as a VFR-only pilot would be expected to do in the same situation?

Should declare an emergency, just like a VFR pilot inadvertently entering cloud.

What help does declaring an emergency do?

First, it alerts the ATC controller that he has a pop-up aircraft that needs to be identified and separated under IFR. Second, you need ATC assistance, right now. Third, covers your butt for being IFR without an ATC clearance, normally a big violation especially in an area like SoCal.

This is the situation where a Mayday or emergency really is necessary and helps the situation immediately.
GF

I have been learning how to use Google Earth Studio and have been trying to fit the publicly available data to reconstruct the last moments of the crash. As others have noted, this is purely amateur work and has none of the sophistication or expertise that the NTSB will provide (I don't even play an NTSB official on TV). That said, I thought members of this forum might be interested. I can't seem to make the flight path match the debris field unless I put in a tighter left turn at the end.



Zoomed in picture of impact point:


Crash Image from IndiaTimes::


My rendering of the crash site reoriented to match IndiaTimes:

airplanecrazy wrote:

I can't seem to make the flight path match the debris field unless I put in a tighter left turn at the end.

Nice work! I think your path is realistic (a decreasing radius descending turn). That's what I was imagining too.

Could you also post a zoomed out view of your path, starting from when it diverges from Hwy 101?

flybucky wrote:

airplanecrazy wrote:

I can't seem to make the flight path match the debris field unless I put in a tighter left turn at the end.

Nice work! I think your path is realistic (a decreasing radius descending turn). That's what I was imagining too.

Could you also post a zoomed out view of your path, starting from when it diverges from Hwy 101?

Sure. I am working to get higher fidelity to the ADS-B data, but I think this is pretty close.

Leeloo wrote:

flybucky wrote:

Canuck600 wrote:

There are comments on PPRUNE that FlightRadar24 data is not reliable in that sort of terrain? Everybody here seems to treat FR24 data like it's gospel but I wonder?

dragon6172 wrote:

Flight tracking websites - By default, they may only save/use the ADS-B data like every 30 seconds or 1 minute (otherwise too much data for them). This can lead to misleading conclusions because they interpolate or smooth the graph with very sparse data points. That's fine for normal, smooth flights. But when something goes wrong, the flight tracking sites may not show it because the data points are too sparse. Thankfully, FR24 will usually publish the granular data for major incidents. That gives the ADS-B data about every 2s.

I run a FR24 station, not in this area though. ADS-B is transmitting data sets twice a second from the aircraft. Every 5 seconds my receiver sends data to FR24s servers, but it only sends the latest data set so there is a lot in between being dumped. But lets say 5 second intervals.. that's the acuracy you have on FR24.

The raw data you can download from FR24 is just a relay of data from the ADS-B transmitter in the aircraft so that is for sure true up to that point. What is being presented on the web page or in the app to make it smooth in way of interpolation etc is a different story. Dont know about that, but it's hardly relevant in this case. The CSV/KML-file data is correct.

Just to be clear 5 seconds is almost as live as an atc radar scope

Very informative new video on the blancolirio channel -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymcG-YKOCM

dfwjim1 wrote:

What help does declaring an emergency do?

Makes the rules immaterial. All that matters in that case is getting the pilot down safely. ATC makes that pilot their only priority and gives him whatever help he needs. The rest gets sorted out later.

Now, the fact that he didn't do that gets back to pilot decision making; he seemed to still be in "get-there-itis" mode while all this was going on. He didn't seem to be thinking "how do I get myself and my passengers down safely?" at that point, but was still thinking "how do I get to my destination from here?" At least judging by what we heard on the radio calls. So he obviously did not see it as an emergency situation even though the outcome makes it clear that it was.

With the housing developments on both sides of the hills, we can at least be thankful that they didn't impact in a residential area.

15cfr700 wrote:

LA Medical Examiners office has listed the pilots cause of death as blunt trauma.
Incapacitation due to a medical incident now seems highly unlikely.
https://mec.lacounty.gov/case-detail/?c ... 2020-00803

The pilot didn't have a medical incident. Look without a CVR/FDR we will never know for sure but it's apparent it's either CFIT or Spatial Disorientation.

hivue wrote:

Very informative new video on the blancolirio channel -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymcG-YKOCM

Yes, except that in the entire video not once do they mention the possibility of a mechanical failure, or at least the need for the NTSB to do their job before drawing any conclusions.

We have been talking about spatial disorientation or loss of control.

But, the discussion about pop-up IFR, emergency declaration, and the permissions that the helo company had... I wonder if the pilot's behaviour can be explained by psychology rather than disorientation.

Lets roll back to the point where he's still flying as planned. He's flying at a relatively good speed, and the clouds are becoming closer as the ground lifts higher. He could have or should have slowed down here but he didn't, perhaps due to get-there-itis. Suddenly he is too far into the clouds, and knowing about the rising ground ahead he knows that he can't plough ahead at that speed, but rather needs to perform an emergency ascent.

He succeeds in doing the ascent and hits nothing on the way. Now he is, however, IFR, despite his claim on the radio that the is doing his manoeuvres to avoid clouds.

He has also realised that he needs to turn back. Completing the mission is no longer possible, but he needs to get back to VFR and their original route. He does not want to declare emergency or make a pop-up IFR request to the ATC because he knows both that he has no recent experience with IFR flying, and, perhaps more importantly, that ATC and FAA will question him later and cause potential problems. So he turns.

He also develops an immediate need to get back to the level where he sees the ground. The stress of running into this situation and too quick execution has made his turn sloppy and much too wide; he's too far off his original flight path rather than closer to the 180 degree turn that would have been required. But he does not stop to verify the situation via GPS track or similar. Instead, he needs to return back to "normal" VFR situation as soon as possible to avoid having to declare to ATC and client what's going on. He presses on too fast and too steep turn.

The clouds clear too late on this descent and despite a last-second attempts, they hit the ground at high speed.

In other words, NOT spatial disorientation about being level vs. descending but rather severe get-there-itis for getting back to previous track and VFR. Too quick execution of the ascent, turn, and descent properly stay closer of the original flight path, and not paying enough attention to instruments to verify that.

Result: nine people dead.

Mistakes: not seeing this ahead of time, not slowing in time just before entering clouds, not declaring the actual situation to ATC, hasty execution of turn and descent.

AirlineCritic wrote:

He presses on too fast and too steep turn.

The clouds clear too late on this descent and despite a last-second attempts, they hit the ground at high speed.

In other words, NOT spatial disorientation about being level vs. descending but rather severe get-there-itis for getting back to previous track and VFR. Too quick execution of the ascent, turn, and descent properly stay closer of the original flight path, and not paying enough attention to instruments to verify that.

Good initial analysis IMO, plus left turn favored eyes looking out to left of aircraft, and any mere glimpse of ground site he may have had was terrain lower to the left than the height of the terrain directly below him, giving him false reassurance (all going through the mind in mere seconds). I would argue though that the clouds inherently leaves room for spatial disorientation when considering the end result (crash).

IADFCO wrote:

hivue wrote:

Very informative new video on the blancolirio channel -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymcG-YKOCM

Yes, except that in the entire video not once do they mention the possibility of a mechanical failure, or at least the need for the NTSB to do their job before drawing any conclusions.

He said it in the 2 or 3 previous videos.

Can someone give an indication of the cost of chartering that helicopter (for a non owner), and the cost involved in getting 2 pilots instead of 1 ?

TYWoolman wrote:

AirlineCritic wrote:

He presses on too fast and too steep turn.

The clouds clear too late on this descent and despite a last-second attempts, they hit the ground at high speed.

In other words, NOT spatial disorientation about being level vs. descending but rather severe get-there-itis for getting back to previous track and VFR. Too quick execution of the ascent, turn, and descent properly stay closer of the original flight path, and not paying enough attention to instruments to verify that.

Good initial analysis IMO, plus left turn favored eyes looking out to left of aircraft, and any mere glimpse of ground site he may have had was terrain lower to the left than the height of the terrain directly below him, giving him false reassurance (all going through the mind in mere seconds). I would argue though that the clouds inherently leaves room for spatial disorientation when considering the end result (crash).

Pilot sits in the RH seat in a helicopter. Not sure a left turn favors visibility for terrain avoidance.

Was the basketball game they were going to in Calabasas or Camarillo?

RightRudder wrote:

Was the basketball game they were going to in Calabasas or Camarillo?

Newbury Park, CA, so in between Camarillo and Calabasas.
https://goo.gl/maps/QREJswACSYxs4EcB6

airplanecrazy wrote:

Sure. I am working to get higher fidelity to the ADS-B data, but I think this is pretty close.

What was the intended path? ( if that is know )
Follow the road any further ?
or fly into the "glob" of housing right from the crash site?

airplanecrazy wrote:

I have been learning how to use Google Earth Studio and have been trying to fit the publicly available data to reconstruct the last moments of the crash. As others have noted, this is purely amateur work and has none of the sophistication or expertise that the NTSB will provide (I don't even play an NTSB official on TV). That said, I thought members of this forum might be interested. I can't seem to make the flight path match the debris field unless I put in a tighter left turn at the end.

I tighter turn at the end makes sense. We know the aircraft was in a descending LH turn. Maybe the fog/cloud cleared enough and there was a windscreen full of mountain, or maybe the radar altimeter DH alerter sounded (assuming one is installed, operational, and set). Either scenario would have the pilot pulling a crotch full of cyclic and an armpit full of collective, depending on the bank angle at the time it would definitely tighten up the turn radius.

Aesma wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

hivue wrote:

Very informative new video on the blancolirio channel -

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-ymcG-YKOCM

Yes, except that in the entire video not once do they mention the possibility of a mechanical failure, or at least the need for the NTSB to do their job before drawing any conclusions.

He said it in the 2 or 3 previous videos.

Many indiscrepancies with these gentlemen talking. The Sheriffs pad being to the left. No to the right. No to the left again. They mention the Sheriffs pad being right across from the Church of the Canyons. The gym being in Calabasas. They circled over Burbank. Who are the ones that are actually lost here? Unethical in every level to discredit someone with inaccurate facts. Especially discrediting someone in the same profession. The way he was talking, it sounded like he knew the pilot as tight as a hand and glove.

I will tell with all my humbleness that learning about flying did not come to me as a pilot, but as a passenger. I would never fly with these arrogant people.

There is an article that covers the company this helicopter was flying for. Apparently, Island Express Helicopters has had 3 crashes in it's 35 years of operating. So, I tried to do some research on their fleet. What I could find is they only had 7 helicopters before this crash? That safety record is concerning to me.

The other 2 crashes were related to engine failure. Anyways, I seriously wouldn't have ever stepped foot on one of their choppers knowing they had that kind of history. I wonder if this will be the end of that business?

Can anyone confirm that they had a fleet of 7 helicopters?

RightRudder wrote:

Aesma wrote:

IADFCO wrote:

Yes, except that in the entire video not once do they mention the possibility of a mechanical failure, or at least the need for the NTSB to do their job before drawing any conclusions.

He said it in the 2 or 3 previous videos.

Many indiscrepancies with these gentlemen talking. The Sheriffs pad being to the left. No to the right. No to the left again. They mention the Sheriffs pad being right across from the Church of the Canyons. The gym being in Calabasas. They circled over Burbank. Who are the ones that are actually lost here? Unethical in every level to discredit someone with inaccurate facts. Especially discrediting someone in the same profession. The way he was talking, it sounded like he knew the pilot as tight as a hand and glove.

I will tell with all my humbleness that learning about flying did not come to me as a pilot, but as a passenger. I would never fly with these arrogant people.

I couldn't agree more.

I find every video of his I've attempted to watch to be the same - questionable analysis and self-promoting. I simply cannot watch him. The guy loves to hear himself talk and be TSMITR.
(The Smartest Man In The Room)

ikramerica wrote:

rfields5421 wrote:

UWS wrote:

I keep wondering why they did not just land at the Van Nuys airport and get a car to TO. That would have taken an hour or so (arrival time 1030), which is only 20 minutes more than flying to Camarillo and then to TO.

Pride and getthereitis won out.

I take issue with what I see as an unsupported assumption.

The weather was not 'very bad' when the flight departed.

Bryant was an experienced passenger. I doubt it was possible that he did not recognize that conditions were getting worse. But I could be wrong.

Also as a parent, apparently a good one, I doubt he would risk his child's life for a basketball game if he thought it was dangerous. Yes, she might be extremely disappointed, but at least she would be alive to be disappointed..

This is not like the 2001 G-3 crash at Aspen, the classic 'getthereitis' crash. Where the investigation uncovered the push by the client, and the pilot refusal to disappoint the client.

We will never know what Bryant said, or did not say. Or if the pilot communicated his intentions/ plans to anyone else.

If Bryant were that type of client the pushed a pilot to take chances, I think we would have heard about it already.

People make judgmental mistakes every day. Some have horrible consequences.

Personally, I see it as a tragic instance of a pilot pushing too far trying to please a client, trying one last thing before turning back. It was a bad decision.

But I also have to admit that I will never know for sure why the bird crashed.

I’m not a Bryant fan in any way, but I agree that I don’t think he would push them to keep going in zero visibility.

Having driven that stretch of 101 dozens of times including getting off the highway at most of the exits and taking a test drive through the surrounding roads, I think what happened was very simple.

Things deteriorated rapidly as they approached Calabasas Mercedes and the first opportunity to turn back was that residential area near Las Virgines. While not quite as steep, think of the stretch before La Virgines like something out of Star Wars (1 or 5). Can’t go left, can’t go right.

The experienced pilot knew that area well. He had taken them that way many times before. But the turn around execution failed and we will hopefully find out why. My guess is that off the highway to the left the fog cover was even denser as it got stuck in the mountain bowl.

They had apparently not used the route very often according to the LA Times. Last 2 dozen trips used a different route. Flew the route because of the fog, and would have used a different route normally.

https://ca-times.brightspotcdn.com/dims ... adding.png

LTC8K6 wrote:

They had apparently not used the route very often according to the LA Times. Last 2 dozen trips used a different route. Flew the route because of the fog, and would have used a different route normally.

They had been over the same area in the previous few days, almost over the very place they crashed around 2500’ they flew SNA to CMA and back.

I plotted where these routes intersected with the crashed flight earlier on this thread.

Such a tragic accident. God's comfort be with the loved ones and families of those who lost their lives.

At the flight lat/long data point 34.143 / -118.703 where the L turn toward the South from the I-101 Interstate was made (effectively now heading toward the Church in the Canyon area), had the pilot turned R at this location (instead of L) to a MH of around 220 deg. generally paralleling the Interstate 101, the Calabasas Sheriffs Office (27050 Agoura Road Agoura, CA) Heliport was only 0.7 NM away. Very sad. No idea if the pilot knew there was a Heliport that close, relative to navigation instruments on board (GPS, etc...despite being on a VFR flight) and no idea if he was fighting an aircraft issue resulting in the L turn to the S. The NTSB will figure out the root causes and the why's.

Let’s see. I am flying along the 101 and it gets real foggy in front of me. Can’t helicopters just stop, do a 180, and retrace your steps? Why make 2 left turns to do the same thing?

Going two miles a minute, it’s not as easy as you think. Helicopters don’t stop instantly and hovering is not the preferred mode—in fact hovering in low visibility is a nearly guarantee of crashing. Now should he have been going that fast—no.

If stuck in the clouds couldn't the pilot simply ascended up the through the clouds until he was in the clear notifying ATC while doing this?