Octacopters = no more Kobe-style helicopter crashes ??

[WithTheBirds]

While I agree, in fairness to the OP (whom I’ve made clear I believe his or her underlying premise is false), many apparently pointless arguments have led to innovations. If some sort of transmission system could send power to 6 props, maybe there’s something to this. More failure points, yes, but any single failure would not be catastrophic. But the weight and cost mean it’s probably a long shot.

While I agree, in fairness to the OP (whom I’ve made clear I believe his or her underlying premise is false), many apparently pointless arguments have led to innovations. If some sort of transmission system could send power to 6 props, maybe there’s something to this. More failure points, yes, but any single failure would not be catastrophic. But the weight and cost mean it’s probably a long shot.

I’m on the same hymn sheet as you here- ignorance of possibilities with respect to the unknown is a monumental impediment to progress.

I never suggested alternate systems might not prove to increase safety.

As a general rule (and not universally the case) the more complex a system is to achieve a particular function the more potential failure modes are introduced. We may get improvements in ease of use, efficiency, performance, service life etc however outright reliability improvement isn’t usually the principal benefit.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

It’s hard to explain if you’ve never flown a heli and never been in IMC. I’m not pretending to be an expert but I’ve done both. It’s definitely a lot of workload, especially when your charter certificate prohibits IFR, you’re in marginal conditions, and you have a VIP in the back and a tight deadline.

Can you explain it in simple terms why it's so hard even in foggy conditions? To me, you're in a heli and visual field becomes foggy --- you ascend to 4000 feet and hover and get your wits about you --- then you follow the proper heading to your destination? What is so hard about this strategy? It's not like he's flying "trench runs" on the Death Star at Mach 0.5. You ascend, hover, and regain your senses. Just seems really simple to me.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

As a general rule (and not universally the case) the more complex a system is to achieve a particular function the more potential failure modes are introduced. We may get improvements in ease of use, efficiency, performance, service life etc however outright reliability improvement isn’t usually the principal benefit.

Not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept --- a heli has a single point of failure --- ie, single engine --- anything happens to that single point and you're screwed --- but an octocopter has 8 points of failure but the fact that 2 or 3 points can fail at any given time and the craft can still maintain stable flight --- the reliability is orders of magnitude higher than a single-engine heli --- this just seems like basic common sense to me

 

[sar104]

You contribute nothing to the discussion --- if you're hovering in a heli and even the most basic instruments will tell you altitude, heading, pitch, and roll --- I don't see why there is anything complicated or disorientating about that --- I can fly my Mavic 2 Pro 1000 feet straight up into a thick fog bank and I don't suddenly hit the panic mode because I have no idea where I am and what direction I'm flying --- I simply hover and take a deep breath --- look at my readings about altitude and heading and then make a decision on what to do next --- I don't suddenly go into "disorientation mode" and rapidly descend into the ground --- so why did Kobe's pilot feel the need to abandon simple strategy and fly into the ground like a rock falling out the sky?

That's because you are not actually flying your Mavic 2 Pro - the FC is flying it.

You really should just stop digging - you have clearly demonstrated that you have no clue what you are talking about, and your attempts to win this argument by belittling real pilots are not going to work.

 

[Mavic-Master88]

If some sort of transmission system could send power to 6 props, maybe there’s something to this. More failure points, yes, but any single failure would not be catastrophic. But the weight and cost mean it’s probably a long shot.

Huh, what? Transmission system to 6 props too heavy and costly, huh, what? None of this is making sense. A "transmission" to 6 props is done via small but strong driveshafts. Happens every day in modern aircraft. What is all this "long shot" nonsense?

 

[Cymruflyer]

In the scenario you are now putting forward, of climbing straight up to get above the clouds and then hover there and head off to your destination, that is a simple thing to do and should present no problem to a qualified pilot. However, that is generally not how things happen in aviation due to other aircraft flying in different directions at different altitudes, so you can't just climb up to where you want to and just hang about while you get your bearing. You have no idea who might be above you and what heading they are on. ATC will instruct you where to go and what to climb to, since they are seeing where everyone is, well everyone who has a transponder squawking. Not all aircraft will have one though, depending where you are and what airspace you might be in, of course.

When you are in an aircraft, there are forces acting upon your body and on a good day these feeling all correspond to what you are seeing. However, there are conditions, such as being in a cloud and not trained to be there, or even when you are instrument trained, you might become disoriented, because that has happened to properly trained and qualified pilots. When you fly and pitch up, you feel an added force of gravity and as you slowly level out you go lighter and then revert to that normal feeling.

When banking in a turn you have a set feeling in your body. Pitch up in a turn, or tighten up that turn and that same added feeling of gravity hits you. However, since you know you are in a turn and can look out the window at ground references, you understand how this feels and accept that this is the tighter turn feeling. If you take a person and put them in a situation such as in a cloud, you have no visual ground references or any other references to go by. You might be in a turn and that added gravity feeling you may think is the climbing more steeply while flying a straight line feeling. If you then do what you think you need to in order to level back out (gently lowering the nose), you would be doing something quite differently and the resulting feeling would not correspond to what feeling you were expecting. That would result in your becoming even more confused and then trying something else to get to where you thought straight and level should be, but all the while you would be getting into greater trouble and further danger.

I hope I have explained this well enough to get a basic understanding for a non pilot, it is difficult to explain to you by writing about what you would be feeling, since you have never experienced it. Any proper pilot would understand, but it might just be too foreign for a non pilot to grasp what feelings are being experienced at different flight attitudes. My suggestion is to take an intro lesson somewhere and have the instructor first fly you around, so you can see and feel what is happening and then go straight and level and have you go under the hood. Then have the pilot fly around a bit, climbing and descending, turning left and right, tightening up in a turn, descend and climb in a turn and see if you can accurately tell what attitude you are in, with no visual references with which to confirm those feeling you are experiencing. I think you will be quite surprised.

It happens to experienced pilots sometimes too, not just low time pilots. If you are trying to get a paying passenger somewhere, yet make them feel comfortable and that passenger is a high powered celebrity and your boss may be pressuring you to get the job done quickly and conditions are quickly deteriorating and you are trying to follow what ATC is telling you and relaying info back to them as you watch your instruments and try to watch your GPS track etc. such a work load can prove to be too much and a moments loss of concentration could put you over the edge. It is rarely as simple as you have stated you think it is because there is so much more to be taken into consideration that you have no idea about, when flying. It is NOTHING like standing still and moving two sticks with your thumbs as you look at a phone screen.

 

[WithTheBirds]

Not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept --- a heli has a single point of failure --- ie, single engine --- anything happens to that single point and you're screwed --- but an octocopter has 8 points of failure but the fact that 2 or 3 points can fail at any given time and the craft can still maintain stable flight --- the reliability is orders of magnitude higher than a single-engine heli --- this just seems like basic common sense to me

What you view as common sense seems just as likely to be fallacious reasoning, at least with respect to your claims here. Let’s say you can loose two rotors (out of 8)- that leaves you with 6 times the chance of a catastrophic failure as a single rotor.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Huh, what? Transmission system to 6 props too heavy and costly, huh, what? None of this is making sense. A "transmission" to 6 props is done via small but strong driveshafts. Happens every day in modern aircraft. What is all this "long shot" nonsense?

Everything in aviation is a compromise, if you could have the speed, range, climb power, short field capabilities, slow flight capabilities, cabin space, multiple engines, low fuel burn, high TBO etc. etc. and all that was possible in one aircraft, we would have only have one aircraft flying around the sky. That just is not possible in aviation, at least not yet anyway.

You say have 6 props all turning by individual drive shafts from one transmission and how many engines??? If you had just one that would be pointless since one engine out and you better have jam in you pockets because you will be toast. Have multiple engines and you have more weight and more gearing to go through and basically an impossibility for anything that would take to the air.

 

[Cymruflyer]

My sentiments (as a 20-year airplane pilot) exactly. Come to think of it I should try it again sometime. I was glad to hear Cymruflyer (who appears to be an actual expert on these things) mention that the R22 has a very sensitive stick. That thing just about killed me when I was learning to hover (thankfully I had a great instructor who kept me from bouncing repeatedly off every hangar and airplane in the vicinity).

I learned to fly a friends R-22 and I was told not to hold the stick in the way you might image, but rather to sit still, lean forward a bit, glue my forearm to my thigh, hold the stick lightly with a few fingers and then just move my upper body, around the shoulder area slightly, to control the stick. Also I hate that stupid seesaw stick that they have bolted on to the centre stick. Plus the early ones did not have the most reliable engine. The joke in Britain was, if you want an R-22, just buy a piece of land and just wait. Eventually, one will drop in.

 

[Maviac]

Not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept --- a heli has a single point of failure --- ie, single engine --- anything happens to that single point and you're screwed --- but an octocopter has 8 points of failure but the fact that 2 or 3 points can fail at any given time and the craft can still maintain stable flight --- the reliability is orders of magnitude higher than a single-engine heli --- this just seems like basic common sense to me

First of all - that is completely untrue, as I and others who have some experience have pointed out multiple times. Second, while I’ve tried to be respectful here, your ignorance of basic flight factors, which you have admitted to as a non-pilot, is insulting to those of us who are actually pilots and have been in these situations.

(Just as a single point of your ignorance - as I and others have pointed out multiple times, this was NOT a single engine aircraft). And if you think a heli has a single point of failure, you clearly know virtually nothing about helicopters.

 

[Kilrah]

Not sure why you can't grasp this simple concept --- a heli has a single point of failure --- ie, single engine --- anything happens to that single point and you're screwed --- but an octocopter has 8 points of failure but the fact that 2 or 3 points can fail at any given time and the craft can still maintain stable flight --- the reliability is orders of magnitude higher than a single-engine heli --- this just seems like basic common sense to me

Firstly the heli can have multiple engines.
Secondly an octocopter might have 8 drivetrains, but in my experience with them is that a failure is rarely on them or contained to them, so you can't say that number of drivetrains that can fail = reliabilty improves by that much.
When a motor, ESC, prop, motor mount etc breaks it'll usually throw debris, short power connections etc and affect the neighboring ones. And the number of motors doesn't increase the reliability of the other common components e.g power source.

 

[Cymruflyer]

Single engine, single-rotor aircraft like helicopters are inherently more dangerous than a multi-rotor craft like an octacopter simply because of the design --- a single engine failure causes a crash, whereas an octacopter would require two or more motor failures and/or rotor failures --- it's the same reason commerical airliners can operate on a single engine in case one or two engines fail --- can't do that with a single-prop plane

I am assuming you are not a real pilot because of your statement …"A single engine failure causes a crash". This is completely untrue. A pilot that experiences a single engine aircraft, engine out situation, be it rotor craft or fixed wing, that is unprepared, has not been paying attention to the ground he was passing over and not flying with any thought to what would happen if the engine stopped, will be the one that ends up in a crash.

If you are flying the way you should have been taught by a competent instructor, you will always have that thought in the back of your mind that the engine might one day fail, so what will I do. When you fly, you pay attention to the ground, watch up ahead as well as to the sides, picking out spots where you could put it down in, if the fan stopped blowing. You remember the spots and don't forget the ones you just passed by that are now to your rear. You fly at a safe altitude that gives you time to trouble shoot an engine out situation, in case you can get it restarted and you go into dead stick landing mode when all goes silent.

The aircraft will still fly, you just adjust your settings for best glide, have in mind where you will be putting it down, scan the sky and go about setting up to put in that spot you have picked out. It does not just stop in the sky, then drop straight down, like it does in cartoons. The moment you throttle back any aircraft, you are then without power to continue level flight, so effectively gliding, all be it with some residual power there, but an airplane does glide without power, some better than others. Look at Sully, he glided his aircraft right into the Hudson river. The space shuttle glided all the way back from space to a safe touch down each time, with no engine.

A rotorcraft can also fly when the engine stops because the main rotor is freewheeling or windmilling as you drop. The pilot would go into auto rotation mode, pick a spot to put it into, then set it up and just wait. At the correct altitude, he would go through the motions he was trained to do and bring it in to a bit of a bumpy landing but none the less a landing. The tail rotor only works to offset the torque of the engine when it is running. When it stops, there is no more torque, so no need to be as concerned. If you lose a tail rotor in flight, you would immediately shut down your throttle and go into auto rotation, but that needs some very fast reactions. All pilots should have been trained in engine out scenarios, so that you hopefully will not panic and just crash. Now not all outcomes are good ones, as we all know and can possibly be due to the way the pilot was flying and possibly because the pilot became complacent, thinking their engine was never going to stop in flight. But please don't think that just because the engine stops you will be crashing because it is all down to the pilot, not the aircraft in that situation.

 

[Cymruflyer]

I don't know how you can fly under IFR conditions if the helicopter didnt even have terrain-warning radar? I need someone to explain this.

I'm not a pilot but flying under instrument-only conditions should mean you have all the necessary equipment to fly "blind" --- ie, total fog

In IFR you don't fly alone, you fly with the aid of ATC. That's is why you do not need, as you put it, terrain-warning radar, you will not be put into a position that will have you flying into an obstruction.

 

[Maviac]

Huh, what? Transmission system to 6 props too heavy and costly, huh, what? None of this is making sense. A "transmission" to 6 props is done via small but strong driveshafts. Happens every day in modern aircraft. What is all this "long shot" nonsense?

It is clear now that you are being willfully ignorant, as everyone has figured out. I was trying to have a respectful discussion but there is every indication you have no clue what you’re talking about. I apologize to everyone else here for the disruption.

 

[Maviac]

Can you explain it in simple terms why it's so hard even in foggy conditions? To me, you're in a heli and visual field becomes foggy --- you ascend to 4000 feet and hover and get your wits about you --- then you follow the proper heading to your destination? What is so hard about this strategy? It's not like he's flying "trench runs" on the Death Star at Mach 0.5. You ascend, hover, and regain your senses. Just seems really simple to me.

Well, it seems simple to you because you’re not a pilot, have never flown a helicopter, have no experience in IMC, and are completely ignorant of what you’re talking about. Two points: 1) what you’re suggesting would be illegal, and 2) more importantly, it would lead to a high chance of even more disorientation and loss of control. Go rent an R22 and an instructor and spend an hour under the hood and get back with us. I’m serious. You seem to be an intelligent person but your comments here are profoundly ignorant. Educate yourself. It will cost you around $400 but will be worth it. And pick up a copy of the FAA’s rotorcraft handbook while you’re there. That will set you back $20. It may even be free online.

For example, do you understand the basics of how helicopters fly? Do you know the difference between a cyclic and a collective? Do you realize the blades on the collective are not “fixed“ like on our Mavics? I wouldn’t expect the average drone pilot, or even private fixed-wing pilot, to understand these things (I didn’t, until I spent a few hours doing heli training), but if you’re going to make off-the-wall proposals or suggestions you should have a basic understanding of the general principles.

I’m not trying to be elitist here. Most of my best friends (and my wife, mom, and dad) have never flown a plane, or a helicopter. But they’re not making outlandish clams about flying helicopters on the internet, either.

Sorry for the rant. Mods feel free to delete if I’ve gone to far here, and my apologies if I have. I’m all for legitimate debate (and I think I’ve argued both sides in this particular thread), but just cannot stand uninformed opinions.

 

[MAvic_South_Oz]

The joke in Britain was, if you want an R-22, just buy a piece of land and just wait. Eventually, one will drop in.

Now, it's buy land downwind from some scenic seaside location, and you can own a Mavic Mini sooner or later.

 

[davery87]

No you couldn't be more wrong --- the NTSB has already stated the aircraft was descending at a rate of 2000 feet per minute, and that is consistent with a catastrophic engine failure --- NOT a disoriented pilot. The pilot apparently ascended to 2500 feet to clear the mountain range since he knew he didnt have terrain-warning radar equipment to guide him through the heavy fog. There are also eyewitnesses who said they heard "sputtering" noises before the crash, which is consistent with catastrophic engine failure or a stall.

Actually Mavic-Master - it is you who couldn't be more wrong. You are applying some aspects from fixed wing aviation to a helicopter mishap, and they are very dissimilar.

While the NTSB report won't be out for quite some time, sufficient items of evidence do point to the CFIT (Controlled Flight Into Terrain) profile here: 1) the helo charter company was not certified for IFR operations, and while the pilot was very experienced overall (8000+ hours), because the company was not IFR certified and therefore did not require him to be IFR current in either recent instrument time or annual IFR simulator quals, his having an instrument rating unfortunately did not seem to help in this tragic but preventable situation. 2) You are looking only at the reports of the steep, rapid descent prior to the crash. But you need to take into account the maneuver that immediately preceded that descent, per the ATC tapes: a climbing turn to get above the minimum safe altitude required for ATC Flight Following. Anyone who has been through aviation safety training and/or IFR Refresher training will recognize the climbing turn into IMC (fog/ clouds) >> If this is followed by attempting to roll level, it unfortunately quite often leads pilots who aren't current on instrument flight and are concentrating on finding the outside visual references & horizon again to inadvertently NOT level off but rather continue to roll in the opposite direction and get into a spiraling descent without realizing it, since they most likely kept the rate of bank low and at a 1-G loading. This prevents the "seat of the pants" sensory ques from helping them detect the worsening situation UNLESS they immediately transition to their primary flight instruments inside the cockpit. For someone so used to flying only VFR and not being IFR current, that would be less likely, with the result being, unfortunately all too often, exactly what seems to have happened in this case - there not being sufficient time or altitude for a successful recovery. ??

And one additional note, after looking at all the comments above: this type of "Spatial disorientation" (the technical term used by aviation physiologists to describe the loss of knowing your orientation relative to the level horizon) can happen equally to fixed wing pilots and helicopter pilots. Instrument flight safety practices apply equally, and without discrimination, a fact borne out by the number of highly experienced pilots that find themselves in bad situations due to becoming complacent.

 

[firstbase]

........ totally eliminate helicopter crashes like that kind that killed Kobe Bryant ??

"Totally" is a really bad word to use when talking about crashes. Never going to totally eliminate the chance for anything unless you stay on the ground.

 

[MacCool]

Looks like a classic case of inadvertent flight into IMC, with the pilot becoming spatially disoriented in trying to transition from VFR to IFR, losing control and crashing into the ground. Classic, but disappointing that it happened to a pilot who is a CFI-I Helicopter, an instrument instructor.

Here's a pretty rational review of this particular flight, second-guessing the pilot's decision-making process and providing a good overview of the peculiarities of helicopter flight in adverse weather. It addresses a lot of this issues raised in the thread and MaviMaster-88's grossly uninformed understanding.

 

[Thomas B]

Think it’s all said and going off topic.
A real loss to pro basketball for sure.