Kobe Bryant killed in helicopter crash

renotime

Ostrich
Gold Member
Man paints a very vivid picture of what he saw and heard.


Also just read this on NYT. He had to get special permission to fly through the fog.

The helicopter that crashed on Sunday with Kobe Bryant and eight other people on board, killing everyone, had received approval to fly even though weather conditions were worse than usual standards for flying.

The helicopter flew north from Orange County after takeoff on Sunday morning and circled near Burbank, waiting for clearance to keep going. According to audio records between the helicopter’s pilot and air traffic control at Burbank Airport, the helicopter was given what is known as Special Visual Flight Rules clearance, meaning they could proceed through Burbank’s airspace on a foggy morning in Southern California.
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/27/sports/kobe-bryant-death.html
 

Sooth

Pelican
Gold Member
Easy to see how bad news articles spread when you listen to that guy saying he thought the chopper was still in control and that the pilot was disorientated, but when you watch the video it's clear the pilot wasn't in control and looks to be more like mechanical failure of the chopper.
 

porscheguy

Ostrich
I’m not sure why he got a special VFR clearance when he knew he was going to be flying into IFR conditions. And once in IFR conditions, why didn’t he immediately file an IFR flight plan?

Unfortunately the personality traits that draw people into piloting (over confident risk taking primarily) are the same traits that will deter one from brokering caution when the need arises.

In the end, it will be “controlled flight into terrain, pilot error.”
 

JayR

Woodpecker
Sooth said:
Easy to see how bad news articles spread when you listen to that guy saying he thought the chopper was still in control and that the pilot was disorientated, but when you watch the video it's clear the pilot wasn't in control and looks to be more like mechanical failure of the chopper.
I don't think any verified video of the crash or the moments preceding it has emerged, so all we have to go on at this point are interviews with witnesses. That older guy in the cap seemed credible to me.
 

MajorStyles

Kingfisher
wannable alpha said:
Stefan Molyneux on Kobe's death. Talks about the worship and deification of talent over morals and then the details of the rape case.


A WaPo journo got suspended for tweeting this 3-year old story and got many death threats
https://www.thedailybeast.com/kobe-...ce-the-accusers-story-and-the-half-confession

Another good one
https://www.latimes.com/sports/story/2020-01-26/what-happened-kobe-bryant-sexual-assault-case
If it were about talent, or even morals, both of those things would be honorable - despite Molyneux's take. However, Molyneux is giving far too much credit to the general public.

Americans are addicted to Sportsball, and Kobe's death is the equivalent of losing a personal Jesus. He was a daily figure in a secular world devoid of absoutism, God, etc. He was like a former President in the United States of ESPN.

So there is an underpinning to this tragedy - and it was a horrible tragedy. It's more about the fact that so many Americans, particularly men, have invested two decades in front of a television, vicariously living through the feats of other men in an unhealthy way. These men are mourning the loss of a Sportsball idol.

By contrast, I visited a friend today who does not follow basketball; he did not know about the incident, and did not know what team Kobe played for.

The ugly fact is that innocent people die in horrible accidents all the time. Some of these men are heart surgeons, inventors, inspirational teachers, etc. So the importance that we place on the deaths of some, as opposed to others, is an indication of our personal worldview (for both good and bad).
 

Papaya

Crow
Gold Member
MajorStyles said:
The ugly fact is that innocent people die in horrible accidents all the time. Some of these men are heart surgeons, inventors, inspirational teachers, etc. So the importance that we place on the deaths of some, as opposed to others, is an indication of our personal worldview (for both good and bad).
^This

I posted this thread not because of his being a celebrity or a basketball player. Ive been around enough celebrities over the years that that means less than nothing to me. Nor do I
 

Rotten

Robin
I hated those Lakers Teams.

Shaq came within an inch of ending Brad Miller's life on the court because he was enraged and out of control. He got a joke punishment and his team rallied around him. Kobe probably did rape that girl, who was under a huge amount of pressure from all sectors of society to just go away (she took a settlement and declined to testify, not the usual false-rape-claim fact pattern). They were a bunch of thugs, and Kobe was the killer. Even when Kobe won his titles without Shaq, they were with the help of Artest, the instigator of the fight that almost got Miller killed.

NBA basketball was pretty much unwatchable between Jordan's retirement from the Bulls and Lebron's decision to go to the Heat. Not coincidentally, these were the years where Bryant was the face of the league.
 

Rob Banks

Pelican
wannable alpha said:
Stefan Molyneux on Kobe's death. Talks about the worship and deification of talent over morals and then the details of the rape case.

...
Stefan Molyneux makes some good points and I agree that, as a society, we should not worship athletes the way we do. However, I remember reading about the rape case and I highly doubt Bryant raped that woman

First of all, the woman seemed like she was very emotionally unstable. Molyneux talks about how her name should not have been "dragged through the mud" by bringing up the fact that she had sex with multiple men around the same time Bryant "raped" her, but how is that not relevant? Bryant's lawyers would have to be incompetent not to bring that up. Every accused criminal has a right to confront and question their accuser.

This woman met Bryant at his hotel and, after flirting with him, voluntarily agreed to go to his room. Are we supposed to believe that she thought they were just going to talk and watch TV together? There is no way in hell she was that naive.

Also, why would Bryant need to rape anyone? He's Kobe F-ing Bryant. He can have pretty much any woman he wants. As Molyneux points out, Bryant has cheated on his wife over 100 times (I assume with willing young women). I have trouble believing he would need to rape anyone (unless he specifically got off by raping women).

Lastly, the woman declined to testify and settled out of court. In my opinion, that is not because the courts were oh-so-biased against her. It was because she was afraid of the truth coming out but at the same time she wanted her big payday.

Of course I wasn't there and I'll never know what truly happened, but that is just my opinion.

Needless to say, Bryant was sleazy and he shouldn't have been cheating on his wife especially considering he had a 6-month-old baby at home. He also exercised poor judgment by sticking his you-know-what in crazy. But that doesn't make him a rapist.
 

Paracelsus

Crow
Gold Member
Hypno said:
Excellent explanation. Is that Taleb discussion from a book, or an interview? I've read some of his books but not all.
It's from Skin in the Game, his latest book. Though a good number of chapters of the book have been published online at Medium, the book is still well worth the read on its own.

911 said:
Yes, that is why I've provided a rough estimate of the probability of a fatal crash per trip. In this case it is of the order of 1 in 500,000, pretty decent odds. Helicopters have been part of the landscape for 60+ years, if those odds really were unreasonable, they wouldn't still be flying.
As said (and QED for that matter), the human propensity for self-deception is unlimited. Most people don't really understand the significance of statistics let alone those statistics themselves. The issue is not the frequency of the event, the issue is repeated exposure to risk and the fact that ruin is one of the outcomes. If you can't manage the risks, if you can't dictate to the rotor blades that it's roll 499,999 rather than 500,000, then you are a fucking idiot to continue taking the risk. Or more specifically, you're an idiot to say that a helicopter is safe because all helicopters as a statistical group only crash once every 300 years. That is to conflate time probability with ensemble probability, as I keep saying.
 

joseph15

Sparrow
It's already been confirmed that the video posted earlier in this thread is over a year old and is NOT Kobe's helicopter. There likely isn't a video of the crash because it was in somewhat of a remote location (hit a mountain) and it was an extremely foggy day.
 

Rotten

Robin
Rob Banks said:
wannable alpha said:
Stefan Molyneux on Kobe's death. Talks about the worship and deification of talent over morals and then the details of the rape case.

...

This woman met Bryant at his hotel and, after flirting with him, voluntarily agreed to go to his room. Are we supposed to believe that she thought they were just going to talk and watch TV together? There is no way in hell she was that naive.
The woman was in the hotel room because it was her job to take care of guests in the hotel.

Plus, even if she was willing to sex him within minutes of meeting him for the first time and there is no evidence that she was, that doesn't give him the right to go directly to the pooper. I think that would require a special additional consent.

Meanwhile the pressure that she was under to just go away was immense.
 

eradicator

Peacock
Gold Member
Of course from msnbc





And of course he didn’t rape that girl in Colorado. At the time that it happened, the girl had semen in her underwear from 2 other men. After they had sex she was happy/overjoyed even and bragged about having sex with Kobe to her friends and even bragged about how much money she was going to get from the civil lawsuit.

Not saying it’s ok for Kobe to cheat on his wife but let’s not call him a rapist when he clearly didn’t rape, this isn’t xojane
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Paracelsus said:
911 said:
Yes, that is why I've provided a rough estimate of the probability of a fatal crash per trip. In this case it is of the order of 1 in 500,000, pretty decent odds. Helicopters have been part of the landscape for 60+ years, if those odds really were unreasonable, they wouldn't still be flying.
As said (and QED for that matter), the human propensity for self-deception is unlimited. Most people don't really understand the significance of statistics let alone those statistics themselves. The issue is not the frequency of the event, the issue is repeated exposure to risk and the fact that ruin is one of the outcomes. If you can't manage the risks, if you can't dictate to the rotor blades that it's roll 499,999 rather than 500,000, then you are a fucking idiot to continue taking the risk. Or more specifically, you're an idiot to say that a helicopter is safe because all helicopters as a statistical group only crash once every 300 years. That is to conflate time probability with ensemble probability, as I keep saying.
You're right about most people not understanding the significance of statistics, and the personal cognitive biases that cloud one's judgment, but as someone who has covered both of these issues in depth at a graduate level course work, I tend to not fall in that category of people.

The main issue is the actual risk you take in a given transport mode, and for helicopters, it is statistically proven to be quite safe:

Chart data compiled and analyzed from NTSB, U.S. DOT via Diio Mi, NHTSA.

Transportation mode Death index
Airlines 1
Intercity rail (Amtrak) 20.0
Scheduled charter flights 34.3
Mass transit (rail and bus) 49.8
Non-scheduled charter flights 59.5
Non-scheduled helicopter flights 63.0
General aviation (like private planes) 271.7
Driving or riding in a car/SUV 453.6
"Ruin" is the same outcome here that is being evaluated across transport platforms, you'll be just as ruined if you die in a car crash or in a chopper, and all these activities are repetitive, and the chopper is in the same risk envelope as car travel.

An activity with an associated risk level of 1 in 500,000 is well within the realm of safe activities one can frequently undertake without a lot of afterthought, orders of magnitude safer than going out at night in your average American city for instance.


If you can't manage the risks, if you can't dictate to the rotor blades that it's roll 499,999 rather than 500,000, then you are a fucking idiot to continue taking the risk.
That's what's known as the control fallacy, the tendency to believe that your risks are lower when you are in control, regardless of what the statistics tell you.
 

Donfitz007

Kingfisher
Rotten said:
I hated those Lakers Teams.

Shaq came within an inch of ending Brad Miller's life on the court because he was enraged and out of control. He got a joke punishment and his team rallied around him. Kobe probably did rape that girl, who was under a huge amount of pressure from all sectors of society to just go away (she took a settlement and declined to testify, not the usual false-rape-claim fact pattern). They were a bunch of thugs, and Kobe was the killer. Even when Kobe won his titles without Shaq, they were with the help of Artest, the instigator of the fight that almost got Miller killed.

NBA basketball was pretty much unwatchable between Jordan's retirement from the Bulls and Lebron's decision to go to the Heat. Not coincidentally, these were the years where Bryant was the face of the league.
Man this forum has gotten soft.
 

The Wire

Kingfisher
Gold Member
Captainstabbin said:
I wonder what the safety rates will be when sky taxis become a reality. Most drone designs don't look like they can handle winds well.

Here's a great article about the relative statistics of common transportation. Kobe, especially in LA traffic, was far safer in a helicopter under most conditions.

Transportation mode..........................Death index
Airlines............................................1
Intercity rail (Amtrak)........................20.0
Scheduled charter flights....................34.3
Mass transit (rail and bus)..................49.8
Non-scheduled charter flights..............59.5
Non-scheduled helicopter flights..........63.0
General aviation (like private planes)...271.7
Driving or riding in a car/SUV..............453.6

Chart data compiled and analyzed from NTSB, U.S. DOT via Diio Mi, NHTSA.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/are-helicopters-safe-how-they-stack-up-against-planes-cars-and-trains/

This article was written either by a complete moron or there was an agenda to push...note that this article is from a website with the following article published a month ago "A helicopter might be your best bet to get to Manhattan from JFK this holiday" https://thepointsguy.com/news/uber-copter-jfk-deal/


If you read into that article the analysis on that data was put together by some random freelance blogger who admits that the data from the mutiple sources(with no link to the raw data) he used wasn't even comparable so they came up with their own way to make it work using flight hours vs passenger miles.

"We don’t know the number of passenger miles for helicopter flights and there’s no such thing as flight hours for cars and trains. But based on the flight-hours data, we DO know how much safer it is to fly on an airline than to fly on a helicopter. And based on the passenger-miles data, we DO know how much safer it is to fly on an airline than it is to ride Amtrak or other mass transit — and, in turn, how much safer it is to be on mass transit than it is to ride in a car."

And this is where the analysis falls apart. Comparing passenger-miles data between airplanes and mass transit is nonsensical. Passenger planes travel much further distances and are safe when cruising at altitude...the danger is in takeoffs and landings...in other-words the only thing you care about is how many times you fly not distance. Flying 10 miles is as dangerous as flying 300 miles.


The idea that flying a helicopter is multitudes safer than driving a vehicle makes my brain hurt on the stupidity that website is trying to push. Every single person on this forum has been a passenger in a vehicle since they were an infant probably 5 days a week. If you're 30 years old you could easily have been in a vehicle 50,000 times. How many people do you know have been in a helicopter 50,000 times? They're just not comparable in safety. The only reason vechiles may seem dangerous is because we are in them everyday which makes the chance of death over a long enough period seem higher. There are people who have died from riding in a helicopter once. The chances of getting killed in your first car ride....? Sure both are rare but I'll take the odds on the car.
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
The Wire said:
Captainstabbin said:
I wonder what the safety rates will be when sky taxis become a reality. Most drone designs don't look like they can handle winds well.

Here's a great article about the relative statistics of common transportation. Kobe, especially in LA traffic, was far safer in a helicopter under most conditions.

Transportation mode..........................Death index
Airlines............................................1
Intercity rail (Amtrak)........................20.0
Scheduled charter flights....................34.3
Mass transit (rail and bus)..................49.8
Non-scheduled charter flights..............59.5
Non-scheduled helicopter flights..........63.0
General aviation (like private planes)...271.7
Driving or riding in a car/SUV..............453.6

Chart data compiled and analyzed from NTSB, U.S. DOT via Diio Mi, NHTSA.

https://thepointsguy.com/news/are-helicopters-safe-how-they-stack-up-against-planes-cars-and-trains/

This article was written either by a complete moron or there was an agenda to push...note that this article is from a website with the following article published a month ago "A helicopter might be your best bet to get to Manhattan from JFK this holiday" https://thepointsguy.com/news/uber-copter-jfk-deal/


If you read into that article the analysis on that data was put together by some random freelance blogger who admits that the data from the mutiple sources(with no link to the raw data) he used wasn't even comparable so they came up with their own way to make it work using flight hours vs passenger miles.

"We don’t know the number of passenger miles for helicopter flights and there’s no such thing as flight hours for cars and trains. But based on the flight-hours data, we DO know how much safer it is to fly on an airline than to fly on a helicopter. And based on the passenger-miles data, we DO know how much safer it is to fly on an airline than it is to ride Amtrak or other mass transit — and, in turn, how much safer it is to be on mass transit than it is to ride in a car."

And this is where the analysis falls apart. Comparing passenger-miles data between airplanes and mass transit is nonsensical. Passenger planes travel much further distances and are safe when cruising at altitude...the danger is in takeoffs and landings...in other-words the only thing you care about is how many times you fly not distance. Flying 10 miles is as dangerous as flying 300 miles.


The idea that flying a helicopter is multitudes safer than driving a vehicle makes my brain hurt on the stupidity that website is trying to push. Every single person on this forum has been a passenger in a vehicle since they were an infant probably 5 days a week. If you're 30 years old you could easily have been in a vehicle 50,000 times. How many people do you know have been in a helicopter 50,000 times? They're just not comparable in safety. The only reason vechiles may seem dangerous is because we are in them everyday which makes the chance of death over a long enough period seem higher. There are people who have died from riding in a helicopter once. The chances of getting killed in your first car ride....? Sure both are rare but I'll take the odds on the car.

The guy who died from his first helicopter ride is a 1 in 500,000 case, he's like the guy who won a lottery jackpot. Heli pilots do rack up the hours, their occupation is considered fairly dangerous, but on par with roofers or even truck drivers, statistically speaking.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/mone...es-25-most-dangerous-jobs-america/1002500001/


I'm not sure about landing and takeoff being the bulk or near entirety of the risk of crashing. I think that's more true of fixed wing planes, the main/bigger risk of helicopter crash is actually from lower altitude flight, where you can hit something (the ground, a wire, a low-flying large bird), especially in low visibility conditions, or simply because you don't have the time and space to react to any mechanical malfuntion.
 

Eusebius

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Lots of nonsense about statistics and probability in this thread. Some are saying that it's inevitable that Kobe died, a 100% certainty...and others saying that despite the statistics, helicopters are safer than cars.
It may be true that take offs and landings are the risky part, and that someone taking many short trips is more at risk than someone taking fewer but longer trips. It may also be true that particular models of helis are safer, and that employing a superior, experienced pilot will cut your risk. But ultimately those stats show the broad picture. 1 in 18 people who take 10 hours in a helicopter weekly over 20 years will die. Taleb's casino example has nothing to do with this.
 

la bodhisattva

Kingfisher
Donfitz007 said:
Rotten said:
I hated those Lakers Teams.

Shaq came within an inch of ending Brad Miller's life on the court because he was enraged and out of control. He got a joke punishment and his team rallied around him. Kobe probably did rape that girl, who was under a huge amount of pressure from all sectors of society to just go away (she took a settlement and declined to testify, not the usual false-rape-claim fact pattern). They were a bunch of thugs, and Kobe was the killer. Even when Kobe won his titles without Shaq, they were with the help of Artest, the instigator of the fight that almost got Miller killed.

NBA basketball was pretty much unwatchable between Jordan's retirement from the Bulls and Lebron's decision to go to the Heat. Not coincidentally, these were the years where Bryant was the face of the league.
Man this forum has gotten soft.
Yes, the change has been drastic and I'm not referring to the reorientation to religion (which as always be part of my life).

I'm honestly surprised that I haven't seen a post praising his death because he never sufficiently addressed one of the new sacred cow talking points of the board's new bloods.
 

perros

Woodpecker
Kobe was also an incredibly patriotic guy as well who loved his country. Was always a staunched supporter of all the Team USA teams in any sport. He was always present at the world cups supporting the US soccer team and the women's soccer teams. Was present at the Olympics when Michael Phelps won all those gold medals and supporting team USA at the Olympics.

I'm so sad to see him go.
 
Top