20000907032859I

Incident · Minor damage

FAA incident report · Bell 206B · Piru, CA · September 7, 2000

Date
September 7, 2000 · 11:55 local
Place
Piru, CA
Phase of flight
Prw On Run Landing (Rotorcraft
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Operator
BKFA
Damage
Minor damage
Aircraft
N55WT
Reported as
Bell 206B
Reported engine
Allison 250C20
People aboard
2
Fatal injuries
0
Pilot’s flight hours
13,000 total4,000 in this make and model123 in the last 90 days

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

(-23)While conducting an FAR part 135.293 VFR helicopter competency check the pilot was asked to simulate a left stuck pedal tail rotor failure. The pilot selected a landing site he though was more suitable for the landing than the landing site they had been using. A shallow approach to the landing area was initiated with the a/c yawed left. The pilot surmised that the left stuck pedal was probably adequate to be able to bring the a/c to a hover. The pilot added power to level off at about one foot skid height and slowed the a/c. as the a/c straightened out in the direction of flight, the pilot instinctively reduced the collective and touched down at a very slow ground speed. Teh skids sunk into the soft sand and teh a/c rocked forward, stopped, and rocked back to rest on the skids. Minor damage to the a/c resulted. The pilots vast experience was evident in that when the a/c rocked forward he did not pull aft on the cyclic which could have caused the main rotor to strike the tail boom and cause further, more exrensive, damage. The pilot then shutdown the a/c for inspection which also showed good judgement. The pilot noted the following lessons to be learned from this flight: 1) although both the pilot and the check pilot believed the manuever would terminate at a hover he, the pilot, instinctively set the a/c down when the nose passed through the 12 o'clock position in relation to it's flight path. This would have been the proper action to take had this been an actual emergency situation. 2) he, the pilot, changed the location of the alnding zone without doing a n inspection of the new landing site prior to simulating this manuever. 3) when simulating system malfunctions verbally the expected outcome of the manuever between the pilots. 4) locate a desirable and appropriate area to conduct simulated emergenciesthe pilot was counselled. No further action required.

As the FAA filed it

(-23)WHILE CONDUCTING AN FAR PART 135.293 VFR HELICOPTER COMPETENCY CHECK THE PILOT WAS ASKED TO SIMULATE A LEFT STUCK PEDAL TAIL ROTOR FAILURE. THE PILOT SELECTED A LANDING SITE HE THOUGH WAS MORE SUITABLE FOR THE LANDING THAN THE LANDING SITE THEY HAD BEEN USING. A SHALLOW APPROACH TO THE LANDING AREA WAS INITIATED WITH THE A/C YAWED LEFT. THE PILOT SURMISED THAT THE LEFT STUCK PEDAL WAS PROBABLY ADEQUATE TO BE ABLE TO BRING THE A/C TO A HOVER. THE PILOT ADDED POWER TO LEVEL OFF AT ABOUT ONE FOOT SKID HEIGHT AND SLOWED THE A/C. AS THE A/C STRAIGHTENED OUT IN THE DIRECTION OF FLIGHT, THE PILOT INSTINCTIVELY REDUCED THE COLLECTIVE AND TOUCHED DOWN AT A VERY SLOW GROUND SPEED. TEH SKIDS SUNK INTO THE SOFT SAND AND TEH A/C ROCKED FORWARD, STOPPED, AND ROCKED BACK TO REST ON THE SKIDS. MINOR DAMAGE TO THE A/C RESULTED. THE PILOTS VAST EXPERIENCE WAS EVIDENT IN THAT WHEN THE A/C ROCKED FORWARD HE DID NOT PULL AFT ON THE CYCLIC WHICH COULD HAVE CAUSED THE MAIN ROTOR TO STRIKE THE TAIL BOOM AND CAUSE FURTHER, MORE EXRENSIVE, DAMAGE. THE PILOT THEN SHUTDOWN THE A/C FOR INSPECTION WHICH ALSO SHOWED GOOD JUDGEMENT. THE PILOT NOTED THE FOLLOWING LESSONS TO BE LEARNED FROM THIS FLIGHT: 1) ALTHOUGH BOTH THE PILOT AND THE CHECK PILOT BELIEVED THE MANUEVER WOULD TERMINATE AT A HOVER HE, THE PILOT, INSTINCTIVELY SET THE A/C DOWN WHEN THE NOSE PASSED THROUGH THE 12 O'CLOCK POSITION IN RELATION TO IT'S FLIGHT PATH. THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE PROPER ACTION TO TAKE HAD THIS BEEN AN ACTUAL EMERGENCY SITUATION. 2) HE, THE PILOT, CHANGED THE LOCATION OF THE ALNDING ZONE WITHOUT DOING A N INSPECTION OF THE NEW LANDING SITE PRIOR TO SIMULATING THIS MANUEVER. 3) WHEN SIMULATING SYSTEM MALFUNCTIONS VERBALLY THE EXPECTED OUTCOME OF THE MANUEVER BETWEEN THE PILOTS. 4) LOCATE A DESIRABLE AND APPROPRIATE AREA TO CONDUCT SIMULATED EMERGENCIESTHE PILOT WAS COUNSELLED. NO FURTHER ACTION REQUIRED.

Other reports on N55WT · 1

Matched to the same aircraft by N-number and date.