Holy shit.. Kobe Bryant!!

The risk of flying in a plane is less than that of a car... helicopters are a different story. The statement is true though, you accept the risk that you may crash and die if you fly anything... or if you drive, or boat, or ride a train, a horse. I think you can use your whole heart to agree with that as it is fact.

A TWS would or could have given a spatially unaware person a reference to the ground.
Not in the amount of time that this incident occurred. It looks like the helicopter was banked at 180 degrees, extremely hard to recover that at such a low altitude. The pilot got himself into the situation by flying into IMC and not maintaining enough forward speed for the autopilot to function. Spatial disorientation puts you in the mindset that you think you fully believe you're at a certain attitude to the point that you ignore the instruments or completely distrust them. It's really hard to understand unless you've been in that position before. The human brain is incredibly flawed. TWS won't fix that.

Just out of curiousity, what do you think TWS does?
 
@ThxOne you afraid of flying or something bro? Your logic is definitely flawed. I travel a lot. Sometimes drive, sometimes air, all over the country. I'd rather fly any day. Do you know how much it sucks to drive from GA to CA. It's awful.
 
I don't mind flying. I am also not naive and I have delivered beer having to drive on the interstate in the dark during heavy snow at damn near zero visibility and relied heavily on my detailed GPS unit that I was in fact still on a road. My logic isn't flawed... how can it be flawed to know that any mode of transportation can end in death??? Or that instruments that can help you see when your eyes can't, can be beneficial. You two are weird sometimes.
 
I don't mind flying. I am also not naive and I have delivered beer having to drive on the interstate in the dark during heavy snow at damn near zero visibility and relied heavily on my detailed GPS unit that I was in fact still on a road. My logic isn't flawed... how can it be flawed to know that any mode of transportation can end in death??? Or that instruments that can help you see when your eyes can't, can be beneficial. You two are weird sometimes.
I don't mind flying. I am also not naive and I have delivered beer having to drive on the interstate in the dark during heavy snow at damn near zero visibility and relied heavily on my detailed GPS unit that I was in fact still on a road. My logic isn't flawed... how can it be flawed to know that any mode of transportation can end in death??? Or that instruments that can help you see when your eyes can't, can be beneficial. You two are weird sometimes.
Bruh, @wew lad is weird all the times. I certainly have my moments. You more than me tho. For sure
 
I don't mind flying. I am also not naive and I have delivered beer having to drive on the interstate in the dark during heavy snow at damn near zero visibility and relied heavily on my detailed GPS unit that I was in fact still on a road. My logic isn't flawed... how can it be flawed to know that any mode of transportation can end in death??? Or that instruments that can help you see when your eyes can't, can be beneficial. You two are weird sometimes.
Weird is irrelevant, this is just a discussion from two people with different points of view.

Instruments are great, if you're a perfect human. One of the leading causes of accidents in VFR flight is VFR flight into IMC, that's what happened here. SVFR is a special clearance to operate under VFR in highly controlled airspace provided the pilot can meet certain requirements, such as remaining under the ceiling. This pilot did not maintain visual conditions and crashed because of it. He should not have flown in SVFR based on the local weather, and even though he did, he should have turned around immediately to regain visual conditions. The whole risk thing you were referring to is part of the reason this occurred. Elevated risk in SVFR equals a necessity to respond appropriately when you encounter IMC. He didn't. TWS wouldn't prevent this incident, in my opinion.

Even if he called for pop up IFR (which he should have, regardless, it's hard to admit you made a mistake) he wasn't LOS with the radar and ATC couldn't help him. Maybe if he climbed and didn't get spatially disoriented, but that's all hypothetical.
 
Weird is irrelevant, this is just a discussion from two people with different points of view.

Instruments are great, if you're a perfect human. One of the leading causes of accidents in VFR flight is VFR flight into IMC, that's what happened here. SVFR is a special clearance to operate under VFR in highly controlled airspace provided the pilot can meet certain requirements, such as remaining under the ceiling. This pilot did not maintain visual conditions and crashed because of it. He should not have flown in SVFR based on the local weather, and even though he did, he should have turned around immediately to regain visual conditions. The whole risk thing you were referring to is part of the reason this occurred. Elevated risk in SVFR equals a necessity to respond appropriately when you encounter IMC. He didn't. TWS wouldn't prevent this incident, in my opinion.

Even if he called for pop up IFR (which he should have, regardless, it's hard to admit you made a mistake) he wasn't LOS with the radar and ATC couldn't help him. Maybe if he climbed and didn't get spatially disoriented, but that's all hypothetical.
I agree, hypothetical. It was a crappy day.
 
Activity
No one is currently typing a reply...

About this thread

mahc

10+ year member
gay for the stay
Thread starter
mahc
Joined
Location
Montreal, Qc
Start date
Participants
Who Replied
Replies
178
Views
21,272
Last reply date
Last reply from
Slo_Ride
IMG_20260516_193114554_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0
IMG_20260516_192955471_HDR.jpg

sherbanater

    May 16, 2026
  • 0
  • 0

New threads

Top