sakharamg/AviationCorpus · Datasets at Fast360

text stringlengths 0 3.21k
The upper left wing separated at the wing root and the two inboard ribs were separated.
The rear wing spar was broken.
The upper aileron remained attached at all attachment points and was not damaged.
The left wing strut remained attached to the bottom of the left wing.
The bottom left wing separated at the wing root and was fragmented.
Both the front and rear spars were broken.
The left wing strut was not attached to the top of the left wing.
The bottom left aileron remained attached at all attachment points and was not damaged.
The flying wires were intact.
The fuselage from the pilot seat aft was intact and the vertical fin was attached and not damaged.
The left and right horizontal stabilizers were intact and not damaged.
Both elevator control surfaces were attached and undamaged.
The elevator trim tab was deflected in the full up (nose down) position.
Control continuity of the airplane was traced from the cockpit area to each of the flight control surfaces, with no anomalies noted.
MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION An autopsy was performed on the remains of the pilot by the Medical Examiner District Six, Largo, Florida, as authorized by the Pinellas County Coroner.
The cause of death was listed as blunt trauma.
The FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) performed forensic toxicology on specimens from the pilot with negative results for drugs and alcohol.
In an interview with a CAMI medical doctor, the wife of the pilot stated that her husband experienced a fainting episode while on a business trip about two years prior to the accident and that he had suffered a possible broken nose.
A review of the pilot's FAA medical records failed to identify any documentation relating to the fainting incident or any other condition that would facilitate symptoms related to losing consciousness.
According to the wife of the pilot, on the four days leading up to the accident, the pilot had symptoms of a cold and at one point, was relieved from his occupational flying duties due to left eye pain.
The pilot consulted a family care clinic where he received a diagnosis of bronchitis and a chest x-ray that did not indicate any abnormal conditions.
He was prescribed 875 milligrams of Amoxicillin, an antibiotic which treats infections, and sent home where he later mowed his yard.
The next day was spent at brunch, at the beach with family, and welding cosmetic items onto his airplane.
The pilot's wife stated that on the day of the accident, the pilot did not complain of or was not known to have any issues with light headedness or dizziness.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION According to the FAA, aerobatic flight is defined as an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.
According to the operating rules section of 14 CFR Part 91 which defines the restrictions on aerobatics, no person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface.
The pilot reported that while flying a visual approach to land, the airplane’s landing gear struck a pile of dirt at the end of the runway, which pitched the airplane forward causing it to impact the runway in a nose down attitude.
The airplane’s forward fuselage sustained substantial damage.
The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot’s failure to avoid an obstacle during his approach to land.
The operator reported that while the pilot was in the airport traffic pattern, he was distracted by a radio transmission on the common traffic advisory frequency from additional landing traffic at the airport.
The operator stated that the pilot continued his approach to landing, with the landing gear still retracted, having not completed the landing checklist.
While on final approach, the pilot received a "terrain, terrain" alert, and perceived he was slightly low, and added power.
Subsequently, the airplane landed gear up.
The airplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer.
The operator reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot's failure to complete the pre-landing checklist due to a distraction which resulted in a gear-up landing.
The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction toward his commercial certificate worked for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) and were conducting a local instructional flight in the helicopter.
However, the helicopter remained on alert status in the event of a need for response.
The instructor reported that they started a maneuver to simulate a governor failure at 500 ft above ground level (agl) by switching the auto/manual switch to manual.
With the switch in manual, the full authority digital engine control governor was disengaged, which required the pilot to use the twist grip throttle control on the collective to increase and decrease power.
They then proceeded on an extended left downwind for 2.5 miles, and the pilot practiced manipulating the twist grip.
The pilot then turned onto the base leg, turned from the base to final leg, started descending, and reduced the throttle input (rolled off the throttle).
As the helicopter approached the runway threshold about 50 to 100 ft agl, the instructor noticed that the rotor rpm was decreasing a little more than he expected.
He rolled the throttle on but noticed that the rotor rpm was not increasing.
While the helicopter was about 50 ft agl and over the runway threshold, the flight instructor noticed that it was quickly descending and that the rotor rpm was continuing to decrease.
His attempts to increase the rotor rpm by pulling aft cyclic and lowering the collective were unsuccessful.
The helicopter then impacted the runway surface hard, rotated left 180 degrees, rolled over, and came to rest on its left side facing northeast.
A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The pilot was the first RCSD pilot to obtain only a private certificate from an outside vendor and then work on getting a commercial certificate with an RCSD flight instructor.
There was no formal training syllabus, and the pilot did not know before the flight what maneuvers were to be performed.
After completing in-flight simulated instrument work and with the helicopter still running on the ground, the instructor briefed the private pilot on the simulated governor failure maneuver; however, he did not demonstrate the maneuver in flight before he had the pilot perform it.
Further, the instructor did not provide the pilot with an opportunity to adequately practice coordinating movements of the collective and the twist grip throttle before attempting a landing, likely because he had been talking to dispatch since the beginning of the maneuver.
It is likely that the instructor's failure to demonstrate the maneuver and to provide the pilot with adequate opportunity to practice manipulating the twist grip throttle before attempting a landing resulted in the pilot mismanaging the twist grip throttle during the final approach, which led to a decay in rotor rpm.
Further, it is likely that the instructor's inadequate supervision and delayed remedial action during the final approach resulted in the unsuccessful performance of the maneuver.
The flight instructor's failure to adequately brief and demonstrate the simulated emergency procedure to the pilot under instruction and his delayed remedial action and inadequate supervision during the maneuver, which resulted in an excessive sink rate and a hard landing.
HISTORY OF FLIGHT On August 28, 2014, about 1055 Pacific daylight time, an Airbus Helicopters AS 350 B3, N991SD, landed hard and rolled onto its side at Hemet-Ryan Airport, Hemet, California.
The Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) was operating the helicopter under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91.
The deputy flight instructor (FI) and the deputy private pilot under instruction (PUI) sustained minor injuries.
The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the airframe.
The local instructional flight departed Hemet about 1040.
Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.
The FI reported that he and the PUI started a maneuver to simulate a governor failure at 500 feet above ground level (agl) by switching the auto/manual switch to manual.
They proceeded on an extended left downwind to runway 23 for 2.5 miles before turning base.
They turned base to final, started descending, and reduced the throttle input (rolled off the throttle).
As the helicopter approached the runway threshold at 50 to 100 feet agl, the FI noticed that the rotor revolution per minute (rpm) was decreasing a little more than he expected.
He attempted to roll the throttle past the limit switch, but noticed that he was not gaining any additional rpm.
About 50 feet agl over the runway threshold, he noticed that the helicopter was descending at a faster rate of descent, and that the rotor rpm continued to decay.
He attempted to regain rotor rpm by pulling aft cyclic and lowering the collective, but was unsuccessful in increasing rotor rpm.
He noticed that as he moved the cyclic forward to a level attitude, he felt a "resistance" in the movement, and had trouble getting the cyclic to move forward.
The helicopter then impacted the surface of the runway very hard, spun to the left, and came to rest on its left side facing northeast, the same direction from which it approached; it had rotated to the left 180 degrees.
The FI stated that there had been other instances with the cyclic being restricted in this make/model helicopter.
PERSONNEL INFORMATION FI The operator reported that the 44-year-old FI held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, single-engine helicopter, and instrument airplane.
The pilot held a FI certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and helicopter.
The FI held a second-class medical certificate issued on August 12, 2014.
It had the limitations that the pilot must have glasses available for near vision.
The operator reported that the FI had a total flight time of 2,542 hours.
He logged 95 hours in the previous 90 days, and 18 in the previous 30 days.
He had 1,973 hours in this make and model.
He completed a biennial flight review on December 12, 2013.
PUI The operator reported that the PUI held a private pilot certificate with a rating for single-engine helicopter.
The PUI held a second-class medical certificate issued on May 16, 2014.
It had the limitations that the pilot must wear corrective lenses.
The operator reported that the PUI had a total flight time of 259 hours.
He logged 121 hours in the previous 90 days, and 49 in the previous 30 days.
He had 77 hours in this make and model.
He completed a biennial flight review on July 30, 2014.
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The helicopter was a Eurocopter AS350B3, serial number 3325.
The operator reported that the helicopter had a total airframe time of 6,312 hours at the time of the accident.
It was maintained on a continuous airworthiness program, and the last inspection was on July 25, 2014.
The engine was a Turbomeca Arriel 2B, serial number 22151.
Total time recorded on the engine at the time of the accident was 6,026 hours, and time since overhaul was 2,526 hours.
TESTS AND RESEARCH Investigators from the NTSB, FAA, Eurocopter, and Turbomeca examined the wreckage at the Riverside County Sheriff's hangar in Hemet, California, on September 19, 2014.
A full report is contained within the public docket for this accident.
The airframe and engine were examined with no mechanical anomalies identified.
During the airframe examination, there was continuity of the main rotor to the free turbine.
Continuity was established from the main rotor system to the tail rotor drive system.
Cyclic control continuity was established, but stiff due to binding near the rotor mast; the fore/aft push/pull rod under the cabin floor had a small upward dent.
The cyclic friction was set to midrange.
The collective was also stiff from binding of the push-pull rods near the rotor mast area, however, continuity was established.

The upper left wing separated at the wing root and the two inboard ribs were separated.

The rear wing spar was broken.

The upper aileron remained attached at all attachment points and was not damaged.

The left wing strut remained attached to the bottom of the left wing.

The bottom left wing separated at the wing root and was fragmented.

Both the front and rear spars were broken.

The left wing strut was not attached to the top of the left wing.

The bottom left aileron remained attached at all attachment points and was not damaged.

The flying wires were intact.

The fuselage from the pilot seat aft was intact and the vertical fin was attached and not damaged.

The left and right horizontal stabilizers were intact and not damaged.

Both elevator control surfaces were attached and undamaged.

The elevator trim tab was deflected in the full up (nose down) position.

Control continuity of the airplane was traced from the cockpit area to each of the flight control surfaces, with no anomalies noted.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION An autopsy was performed on the remains of the pilot by the Medical Examiner District Six, Largo, Florida, as authorized by the Pinellas County Coroner.

The cause of death was listed as blunt trauma.

The FAA Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI) performed forensic toxicology on specimens from the pilot with negative results for drugs and alcohol.

In an interview with a CAMI medical doctor, the wife of the pilot stated that her husband experienced a fainting episode while on a business trip about two years prior to the accident and that he had suffered a possible broken nose.

A review of the pilot's FAA medical records failed to identify any documentation relating to the fainting incident or any other condition that would facilitate symptoms related to losing consciousness.

According to the wife of the pilot, on the four days leading up to the accident, the pilot had symptoms of a cold and at one point, was relieved from his occupational flying duties due to left eye pain.

The pilot consulted a family care clinic where he received a diagnosis of bronchitis and a chest x-ray that did not indicate any abnormal conditions.

He was prescribed 875 milligrams of Amoxicillin, an antibiotic which treats infections, and sent home where he later mowed his yard.

The next day was spent at brunch, at the beach with family, and welding cosmetic items onto his airplane.

The pilot's wife stated that on the day of the accident, the pilot did not complain of or was not known to have any issues with light headedness or dizziness.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION According to the FAA, aerobatic flight is defined as an intentional maneuver involving an abrupt change in an aircraft’s attitude, an abnormal attitude, or abnormal acceleration, not necessary for normal flight.

According to the operating rules section of 14 CFR Part 91 which defines the restrictions on aerobatics, no person may operate an aircraft in aerobatic flight below an altitude of 1,500 feet above the surface.

The pilot reported that while flying a visual approach to land, the airplane’s landing gear struck a pile of dirt at the end of the runway, which pitched the airplane forward causing it to impact the runway in a nose down attitude.

The airplane’s forward fuselage sustained substantial damage.

The pilot reported that there were no preaccident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot’s failure to avoid an obstacle during his approach to land.

The operator reported that while the pilot was in the airport traffic pattern, he was distracted by a radio transmission on the common traffic advisory frequency from additional landing traffic at the airport.

The operator stated that the pilot continued his approach to landing, with the landing gear still retracted, having not completed the landing checklist.

While on final approach, the pilot received a "terrain, terrain" alert, and perceived he was slightly low, and added power.

Subsequently, the airplane landed gear up.

The airplane sustained substantial damage to the horizontal stabilizer.

The operator reported that there were no pre-accident mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot's failure to complete the pre-landing checklist due to a distraction which resulted in a gear-up landing.

The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction toward his commercial certificate worked for the Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) and were conducting a local instructional flight in the helicopter.

However, the helicopter remained on alert status in the event of a need for response.

The instructor reported that they started a maneuver to simulate a governor failure at 500 ft above ground level (agl) by switching the auto/manual switch to manual.

With the switch in manual, the full authority digital engine control governor was disengaged, which required the pilot to use the twist grip throttle control on the collective to increase and decrease power.

They then proceeded on an extended left downwind for 2.5 miles, and the pilot practiced manipulating the twist grip.

The pilot then turned onto the base leg, turned from the base to final leg, started descending, and reduced the throttle input (rolled off the throttle).

As the helicopter approached the runway threshold about 50 to 100 ft agl, the instructor noticed that the rotor rpm was decreasing a little more than he expected.

He rolled the throttle on but noticed that the rotor rpm was not increasing.

While the helicopter was about 50 ft agl and over the runway threshold, the flight instructor noticed that it was quickly descending and that the rotor rpm was continuing to decrease.

His attempts to increase the rotor rpm by pulling aft cyclic and lowering the collective were unsuccessful.

The helicopter then impacted the runway surface hard, rotated left 180 degrees, rolled over, and came to rest on its left side facing northeast.

A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.

The pilot was the first RCSD pilot to obtain only a private certificate from an outside vendor and then work on getting a commercial certificate with an RCSD flight instructor.

There was no formal training syllabus, and the pilot did not know before the flight what maneuvers were to be performed.

After completing in-flight simulated instrument work and with the helicopter still running on the ground, the instructor briefed the private pilot on the simulated governor failure maneuver; however, he did not demonstrate the maneuver in flight before he had the pilot perform it.

Further, the instructor did not provide the pilot with an opportunity to adequately practice coordinating movements of the collective and the twist grip throttle before attempting a landing, likely because he had been talking to dispatch since the beginning of the maneuver.

It is likely that the instructor's failure to demonstrate the maneuver and to provide the pilot with adequate opportunity to practice manipulating the twist grip throttle before attempting a landing resulted in the pilot mismanaging the twist grip throttle during the final approach, which led to a decay in rotor rpm.

Further, it is likely that the instructor's inadequate supervision and delayed remedial action during the final approach resulted in the unsuccessful performance of the maneuver.

The flight instructor's failure to adequately brief and demonstrate the simulated emergency procedure to the pilot under instruction and his delayed remedial action and inadequate supervision during the maneuver, which resulted in an excessive sink rate and a hard landing.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT On August 28, 2014, about 1055 Pacific daylight time, an Airbus Helicopters AS 350 B3, N991SD, landed hard and rolled onto its side at Hemet-Ryan Airport, Hemet, California.

The Riverside County Sheriff's Department (RCSD) was operating the helicopter under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91.

The deputy flight instructor (FI) and the deputy private pilot under instruction (PUI) sustained minor injuries.

The helicopter sustained substantial damage to the airframe.

The local instructional flight departed Hemet about 1040.

Visual meteorological conditions (VMC) prevailed, and no flight plan had been filed.

The FI reported that he and the PUI started a maneuver to simulate a governor failure at 500 feet above ground level (agl) by switching the auto/manual switch to manual.

They proceeded on an extended left downwind to runway 23 for 2.5 miles before turning base.

They turned base to final, started descending, and reduced the throttle input (rolled off the throttle).

As the helicopter approached the runway threshold at 50 to 100 feet agl, the FI noticed that the rotor revolution per minute (rpm) was decreasing a little more than he expected.

He attempted to roll the throttle past the limit switch, but noticed that he was not gaining any additional rpm.

About 50 feet agl over the runway threshold, he noticed that the helicopter was descending at a faster rate of descent, and that the rotor rpm continued to decay.

He attempted to regain rotor rpm by pulling aft cyclic and lowering the collective, but was unsuccessful in increasing rotor rpm.

He noticed that as he moved the cyclic forward to a level attitude, he felt a "resistance" in the movement, and had trouble getting the cyclic to move forward.

The helicopter then impacted the surface of the runway very hard, spun to the left, and came to rest on its left side facing northeast, the same direction from which it approached; it had rotated to the left 180 degrees.

The FI stated that there had been other instances with the cyclic being restricted in this make/model helicopter.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION FI The operator reported that the 44-year-old FI held a commercial pilot certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land, single-engine helicopter, and instrument airplane.

The pilot held a FI certificate with ratings for airplane single-engine land and helicopter.

The FI held a second-class medical certificate issued on August 12, 2014.

It had the limitations that the pilot must have glasses available for near vision.

The operator reported that the FI had a total flight time of 2,542 hours.

He logged 95 hours in the previous 90 days, and 18 in the previous 30 days.

He had 1,973 hours in this make and model.

He completed a biennial flight review on December 12, 2013.

PUI The operator reported that the PUI held a private pilot certificate with a rating for single-engine helicopter.

The PUI held a second-class medical certificate issued on May 16, 2014.

It had the limitations that the pilot must wear corrective lenses.

The operator reported that the PUI had a total flight time of 259 hours.

He logged 121 hours in the previous 90 days, and 49 in the previous 30 days.

He had 77 hours in this make and model.

He completed a biennial flight review on July 30, 2014.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The helicopter was a Eurocopter AS350B3, serial number 3325.

The operator reported that the helicopter had a total airframe time of 6,312 hours at the time of the accident.

It was maintained on a continuous airworthiness program, and the last inspection was on July 25, 2014.

The engine was a Turbomeca Arriel 2B, serial number 22151.

Total time recorded on the engine at the time of the accident was 6,026 hours, and time since overhaul was 2,526 hours.

TESTS AND RESEARCH Investigators from the NTSB, FAA, Eurocopter, and Turbomeca examined the wreckage at the Riverside County Sheriff's hangar in Hemet, California, on September 19, 2014.

A full report is contained within the public docket for this accident.

The airframe and engine were examined with no mechanical anomalies identified.

During the airframe examination, there was continuity of the main rotor to the free turbine.

Continuity was established from the main rotor system to the tail rotor drive system.

Cyclic control continuity was established, but stiff due to binding near the rotor mast; the fore/aft push/pull rod under the cabin floor had a small upward dent.

The cyclic friction was set to midrange.

The collective was also stiff from binding of the push-pull rods near the rotor mast area, however, continuity was established.