PS Reading my post above, it comes across differently than intended – my point was intended to be that the pilot was probably very good, very experienced in his local area, instrument rated, probably didn’t feel he was pushing his limits too hard initially and I think he had some options for his passengers. So assuming no technical issues what may have happened in relation to his risk management calculus, and (as an undoubtedly less experienced pilot with likely lower risk management experience) what can be done to minimize the odds of it someday happening to me, or anybody else?
Silvaire,
by the looks of it, they were flying at 1400 ft AMSL below a stratus layer in marginal but for rotorcraft flyable conditions in general. The crash site is just past a place where the motorway they were following passes a “canyon” like passage, so what it looks like is that it was at that position where they suddenly climbed away sharply to 2300 ft AMSL before loosing control and entering a left turn descending with almost 2000 fpm before hitting at high speed. They actually cleared the terrain hight going up to 2300 ft, but were definitly IMC up there. I wonder however if we are indeed looking at a loss of control accident or if the sudden departure of controlled flight with a pretty heavy helo plus an experienced and IR pilot could not have had a mechanical reason.
Another bit I am wondering is that there were rumours that Kobe himself was a rated pilot? Was he? From what is written in the press, this helicopter was used by other celebrities within the LA area as well with the same pilot too, so was that some sort of commercial charter outfit which operated this machine?
There are still a lot of questions to be answered on all this. I also do wonder if SVFR is really such a good idea in general. Either it is VFR or you operate IFR? Having said that, I know the rules and possibilities for helos are very different than for airplanes. While SVFR is not approved in Switzerland for airplanes, it is for helos and I am not aware of any accidents caused by this rule. But certainly the usual VFR criteria (5km/1500 ft ceiling) would prevent any sort of flight into IMC in that area.
Silvaire wrote:
My question above was whether other worldwide (e.g. EASA) practice for pilot licencing requires an IR at a lower level than ATP…
It is not required in EASA-land and also not according to ICAO Annex 1.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I also do wonder if SVFR is really such a good idea in general. Either it is VFR or you operate IFR?
The reason for the existence of SVFR is that there are two substantially different sets of VFR minima — those applicable in class F/G at low levels and those applicable otherwise. The purpose of SVFR it to allow aircraft to enter/leave/cross control zones (what is called “surface areas” in the US) in all weather conditions where low-level flight in the surrounding class G airspace is legal.
The reason for the higher VFR minima is collision avoidance so SVFR really has nothing to do with operating the aircraft — it is strictly ATC related. So from a safety point of view there is absolutely no difference between SVFR and ordinary VFR with weather conditions worse than the higher minima but better than the lower minima. If anything SVFR is safer as separation is assured.
The purpose of SVFR
Not sure we know what the original purpose was. In any case in the US now Class G is pretty much for the history books along with NDBs. Nothing above 1200 AGL and in busy areas (like Socal) none at all – everything is Class E to the ground or at most 700 AGL, which is illegal by definition (except for helis).
My interpretation is that SVFR is really IFR in all but name, just like VFR in Class B (which has the same visibility requirements). You’re under positive ATC control and collision avoidance is up to them, not you (which isn’t to say you shouldn’t keep a good eye out for it). Incidentally it is not ONLY available from a tower – you can also get it from approach control (and maybe from center too though I’ve never tried). In fact it’s a delicate question how to do the handover form one facility to another.
The big advantage of SVFR compared to IFR is that you can fly wherever you want, subject to ATC, rather than having to be vectored for miles to fly an approach, or fly at IFR en route altitudes.
That’s in the US. In the UK there’s this bizarre thing of getting SVFR clearance to fly anywhere near Heathrow. They even have a dedicated frequency for it, “Heathrow Special”. But then Heathrow is weird anyway. It used to be Class A, it obviously OUGHT to be Class B, but now it’s Class D, just like Palo Alto!
Airborne_Again wrote:
The purpose of SVFR it to allow aircraft to enter/leave/cross control zones (what is called “surface areas” in the US) in all weather conditions where low-level flight in the surrounding class G airspace is legal.
Yes, that works well to enter/leave/cross control zones but probably not a good idea for doing a long A to B with many SVFR zones transits?
SVFR is probably better left as one-off wild card for quick zone transits or takeoff/land there or to do cloud break on nearby instrument runway (getting to know ceiling and visibility) and then head 10nm to home airfield (you should know your heading, altitude, MSA, RNAV and terrain by heart but there is always a surprise* 
)
Anything more than 10min you are better off staying high in IMC with load of fuel in class G (much easier than flying low level cross-country VFR in class G or trying many SVFR direct) but you will be late…
*Cloudbase can easily change from 1100ft to 400ft over 10nm when terrain only raises by 200ft ??!!
Airborne_Again wrote:
The reason for the existence of SVFR is that there are two substantially different sets of VFR minima — those applicable in class F/G at low levels and those applicable otherwise.
Well, then the question would rather be if the F/G limits are not too low. 1500 m vis and out of clouds may work for helicopters who have to fly in these conditions, like SAR. These limits mean that the normal minimum enroute altitudes which over populated areas is 1000 ft AGL can not be respected. Is there really any other reason than SAR or similar one should fly in such conditions? I can’t really see any, it is mostly unsafe, scud running is dangerous at the best of times and fatal in many. The normal VFR limits of 5 km / 1500 ft are quite enough for most operations.
At my current home base, SVFR is only allowed for helicopters and with our terrain that is not a bad thing at all.
Ibra wrote:
Yes, that works well to enter/leave/cross control zones but probably not a good idea for doing a long A to B with many SVFR zones transits?
In the LA area, you don’t have much choice as there are control zones (“surface areas”) all over the place.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Well, then the question would rather be if the F/G limits are not too low. 1500 m vis and out of clouds may work for helicopters who have to fly in these conditions, like SAR. These limits mean that the normal minimum enroute altitudes which over populated areas is 1000 ft AGL can not be respected. Is there really any other reason than SAR or similar one should fly in such conditions? I can’t really see any, it is mostly unsafe, scud running is dangerous at the best of times and fatal in many. The normal VFR limits of 5 km / 1500 ft are quite enough for most operations.
You have a point about visibility, but not about the cloudbase. The high VFR limits require 1000 ft vertical separation from cloud, so to be legal over populated areas the ceiling must be at least 2000 ft. Actually higher, as the minimum altitude is not 1000 ft AGL, but 1000 ft above the highest obstacle within a 600 m radius.
SVFR is on occasions very useful, and I’ve used it for time to time. It’s not just about scud running: for instance, we sometimes get conditions here during high pressure and low wind where there is a bank of fog about 100m south of the runway, paralleling it, and this bank of fog won’t move all day (or until it burns off) but everywhere else it’s wall-to-wall sunshine. You can’t get a VFR clearance in this because it’s reported as BKN000 and the visibility at the sensor is below VFR minimums but above SVFR minimums – so you can get an SVFR clearance. It’s perfectly safe, and allows you to get out on an otherwise perfect VFR day that would otherwise be off limits just due to a persistent patch of fog to the south. We also sometimes get a thin cloudbase just over the sea to the south which will be something like BKN006, again, SVFR works very well for this – you’ll never go near the actual clouds they are reporting.
