Kobe Bryant's widow files wrongful death suit against helicopter company

[mystery-ak]

Kobe Bryant's widow files wrongful death suit against helicopter company
By Zack Budryk - 02/24/20 01:51 PM EST

Kobe Bryant's widow Vanessa Bryant has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Island Express Helicopters and Island Express Holding Corp., which operated the helicopter that crashed last month, killing her husband and daughter Gianna along with seven other people.

The lawsuit, filed Monday, accuses pilot Ara Zobayan, who was also killed in the crash, of negligence and failure to “use ordinary care in piloting the subject aircraft,” the Los Angeles Times reported.

“Defendant Island Express Helicopters’ breach of its duty and negligence caused the injuries and damages complained of herein and Plaintiffs’ deceased, Kobe Bryant, was killed as a direct result of the negligent conduct of Zobayan for which Defendant Island Express Helicopters is vicariously liable in all respects,” the 27-count lawsuit reads.

more
https://thehill.com/blogs/in-the-know/in-the-know/484365-kobe-bryants-widow-files-wrongful-death-suit-against-helicopter

[mystery-ak]

We all knew this would happen..

[sneakypete]

Kobe,America's most popular rapist.

[DB]

She has a point. The pilot was a fool. He was only cleared for visual flight rules flight. He could have turned around when conditions were going bad but instead flew into a mountain.

[sneakypete]

She has a point. The pilot was a fool. He was only cleared for visual flight rules flight. He could have turned around when conditions were going bad but instead flew into a mountain.

@DB

He was flying a freaking helicopter! He could have just virtually came to a stop,and then gone almost straight up like an elevator until he got clear sky.

Maybe he was relying on a fault altimeter ? He had to have been familiar with the route he was flying,and known how high the hills were.

It just doesn't make any sense unless the the altimeter was faulty,and even then he was a fool to have relied entirely on an instrument when he had the ability to basically go straight up to clear air and look around.

[DB]

@DB

He was flying a freaking helicopter! He could have just virtually came to a stop,and then gone almost straight up like an elevator until he got clear sky.

Maybe he was relying on a fault altimeter ? He had to have been familiar with the route he was flying,and known how high the hills were.

It just doesn't make any sense unless the the altimeter was faulty,and even then he was a fool to have relied entirely on an instrument when he had the ability to basically go straight up to clear air and look around.

That's why she has a point in suing. The pilot made some really bad choices.

[truth_seeker]

That's why she has a point in suing. The pilot made some really bad choices.

Limited visibility and many vertical obstacles are the routine situation here.

I rode in helicopters all around greater Lost Angeles, to oil rigs, and office buildings.
What we call hills here, you call mountains in many other areas.

Prior to the crash an air traffic tower told thepilot he was too low.

Very sad. All the dead passengers were parents and their athlete daughters. Coaches from Orange Coast College(Costa Mesa) , La Serna High School (Whittier) , etc.

The story of Kobe and his wife dating was well known to kids in the area (Marina HS Huntington Beach.

[Sighlass]

I imagine the pilot had a zeal for living just as much as anyone else in that contraption. Sometimes things happen, sometimes things change, sometimes things go wrong. What never changes is ambulance chaser lawyers.

[EasyAce]

Maybe he was relying on a fault altimeter ? He had to have been familiar with the route he was flying,and known how high the hills were.

@sneakypete

Early in the crash's aftermath, I saw stories reporting that the helicopter (made by Sikorsky) lacked a terrain sensor or some such thing that might have told the pilot he was in danger of approaching a hill or mountain. Had the chopper had one, he might have been able to take the evasive move you describe and other moves.

What shocks me, too, is that Sikorsky's been in the aviation business a century and had a decades-long reputation for solid aircraft, including these legendary flying boats . . .

S-40 "Flying Forest":


S-41:


S-42:


S-43 "Baby Clipper":


Plus, the helicopters designated as Marine One:



. . . and, its scheduled replacement, the VH-92A . . .



. . . among others . . .

[DB]

@sneakypete

Early in the crash's aftermath, I saw stories reporting that the helicopter (made by Sikorsky) lacked a terrain sensor or some such thing that might have told the pilot he was in danger of approaching a hill or mountain. Had the chopper had one, he might have been able to take the evasive move you describe and other moves.

What shocks me, too, is that Sikorsky's been in the aviation business a century and had a decades-long reputation for solid aircraft, including these legendary flying boats . . .

The company that owned the Sikorsky is likely the one who chose not to have terrain sensors installed. Optional equipment that costs more. The pilot wasn't licensed to fly on instruments and was an employee of the company as I understand it.

[sneakypete]

The company that owned the Sikorsky is likely the one who chose not to have terrain sensors installed. Optional equipment that costs more. The pilot wasn't licensed to fly on instruments and was an employee of the company as I understand it.

@DB

I know next to nothing about this,so I will ask. Is flying by compass and altimeter considered to be flying by instruments?

[Smokin Joe]

@DB

I know next to nothing about this,so I will ask. Is flying by compass and altimeter considered to be flying by instruments?

If you can't see outside well enough to tell where you are going, those are IFR (Instrument Flight Rules) conditions. You'd need an airspeed indicator and some knowledge of wind conditions, too, just a compass and altimeter wouldn't get you there, along with an artificial horizon/turn and bank indicator to keep you right side up and level.

IFR stands for instrument flight rules – the set of rules that govern aircraft that fly in IMC, or instrument meteorological conditions. In general terms, instrument flying means flying in the clouds. More specifically, IMC is defined as weather that is “below the minimums prescribed for flight under Visual Flight Rules.”

It’s called instrument flight because the pilot navigates only by reference to the instruments in the aircraft cockpit. Flying in the clouds (IMC) requires an IFR flight plan and an instrument rating.

   source

As opposed to VFR (Visual Flight Rules), where you can see what is outside the aircraft well enough to navigate.

[DB]

@DB

I know next to nothing about this,so I will ask. Is flying by compass and altimeter considered to be flying by instruments?

I don't think so but I'm not a pilot. There are a number of instruments that you have to use while avoiding letting your perception of turning/rising or falling take over. Your perception of motion when you have no visual queues is deadly in a plane. Visual flight rules require that you can see where you are going at all times via ground references. Instrument rated pilots can fly in total darkness, in fog, etc.