What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
On September 20, 2017, at approximately 1309 PST (pacific standard time), a Robinson R-22, U.S. Registered helicopter, N7514S was substantially damaged when it rolled over on its side while attempting to land at pad three, at Long Beach airport (lbg) Long Beach, California. The student pilot who was the sole person on board sustained moderate injuries (broken ribs). The flight was operated under the provisions of title 14 code of federal regulations part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed.
There were no fatalities, or serious injuries reported.
On September 20, 2017, student pilot privacy data omitted and his instructor privacy data omitted departed ksna (santa ana airport) at approximately 0445 UTC enroute to klgb (Long Beach airport) with an intent to practice pickups, set downs, hovering, and taxiing. At the time of the accident privacy data omittedwas a student pilot with 42.5 hours of flight time in a Robinson R-22 helicopter, with 27.1 of those hours occurring in the last 60 days. He had flown approximately 1.7 of those hours? Solo in a Robinson R-22 helicopter. privacy data omittedIs a certificated flight instructor with a commercial pilots rating. Prior to their departureprivacy data omittedstated that the aircraft was fueled and separate pre-flight inspections had been conducted by both individuals. privacy data omitted Did provide a statement during a telephone conversation on September 21, 2017, in which he stated the events that preceded the accident. He had flown from ksna to lgb with the intent to practice observed solo flying. After dropping off the flight instructor at pad one, he performed a normal takeoff and entered the pattern with the intent of practicing solo maneuvers at pad three. On approach to pad three he noticed that the wind was ?a little squirrely?. On approach to pad three, at approximately 50 feet AGL (above ground level)privacy data omitted stated that he felt a ?vibration?followed almost immediately by the low rotor RPM warning horn sounding. privacy data omittedFurther stated that he had a forward airspeed of approximately 35 knots while descending at approximately 300 feet per minute. He immediately ?dumped? The collective control and pulled back on the cyclic control. I inquired if prior to striking the ground did he supply any power or up collective control, to which he replied that he did not. I also asked him if at any time preceding or during the series of events just described did he notice anything abnormal with the helicopter such as power or flight control deficiencies to which he replied he did not with the exception of the airframe shudder or vibration prior to the warning horn sounding. privacy data omittedWas in the hospital being treated for his injuries sustained in the accident at the time of the interview. In addition,privacy data omitteddid submit a written statement which provides further detail in the events surrounding the accident. In the written statementprivacy data omittedrecollection of his altitude just prior to the low rotor RPM warning horn sounding was ?around 40 feet from the ground" which differs slightly from his previously provided statement. Additionally, there is some confusion regarding which pad the flight instructor disembarked from the aircraft to observe the student. It is my opinion that either of these discrepancies do not appreciably affect the final outcome of the investigation. However, in the written statement provided by the student he does state that he was ?in a panicked state? When he heard the low rotor RPM warning horn sound. Based on the information provided by the student as well as the flight instructor it appears the flight profile immediately preceding the accident was contrary to the Robinson R-22, pilot?s operating handbook.
At this time there are no verifiable equipment or environmental factors which would be construed as the primary cause of the accident. It appears the primary cause of the accident is a stall which was a result of pilot induced error.
As the FAA filed it
ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2017, AT APPROXIMATELY 1309 PST (PACIFIC STANDARD TIME), A ROBINSON R-22, U.S. REGISTERED HELICOPTER, N7514S WAS SUBSTANTIALLY DAMAGED WHEN IT ROLLED OVER ON ITS SIDE WHILE ATTEMPTING TO LAND AT PAD THREE, AT LONG BEACH AIRPORT (LBG) LONG BEACH, CALIFORNIA. THE STUDENT PILOT WHO WAS THE SOLE PERSON ON BOARD SUSTAINED MODERATE INJURIES (BROKEN RIBS). THE FLIGHT WAS OPERATED UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF TITLE 14 CODE OF FEDERAL REGULATIONS PART 91. VISUAL METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS PREVAILED.
THERE WERE NO FATALITIES, OR SERIOUS INJURIES REPORTED.
ON SEPTEMBER 20, 2017, STUDENT PILOT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ AND HIS INSTRUCTOR ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ DEPARTED KSNA (SANTA ANA AIRPORT) AT APPROXIMATELY 0445 UTC ENROUTE TO KLGB (LONG BEACH AIRPORT) WITH AN INTENT TO PRACTICE PICKUPS, SET DOWNS, HOVERING, AND TAXIING. AT THE TIME OF THE ACCIDENT ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^WAS A STUDENT PILOT WITH 42.5 HOURS OF FLIGHT TIME IN A ROBINSON R-22 HELICOPTER, WITH 27.1 OF THOSE HOURS OCCURRING IN THE LAST 60 DAYS. HE HAD FLOWN APPROXIMATELY 1.7 OF THOSE HOURS? SOLO IN A ROBINSON R-22 HELICOPTER. ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^IS A CERTIFICATED FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR WITH A COMMERCIAL PILOTS RATING. PRIOR TO THEIR DEPARTURE^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^STATED THAT THE AIRCRAFT WAS FUELED AND SEPARATE PRE-FLIGHT INSPECTIONS HAD BEEN CONDUCTED BY BOTH INDIVIDUALS. ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ DID PROVIDE A STATEMENT DURING A TELEPHONE CONVERSATION ON SEPTEMBER 21, 2017, IN WHICH HE STATED THE EVENTS THAT PRECEDED THE ACCIDENT. HE HAD FLOWN FROM KSNA TO LGB WITH THE INTENT TO PRACTICE OBSERVED SOLO FLYING. AFTER DROPPING OFF THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR AT PAD ONE, HE PERFORMED A NORMAL TAKEOFF AND ENTERED THE PATTERN WITH THE INTENT OF PRACTICING SOLO MANEUVERS AT PAD THREE. ON APPROACH TO PAD THREE HE NOTICED THAT THE WIND WAS ?A LITTLE SQUIRRELY?. ON APPROACH TO PAD THREE, AT APPROXIMATELY 50 FEET AGL (ABOVE GROUND LEVEL)^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^ STATED THAT HE FELT A ?VIBRATION?FOLLOWED ALMOST IMMEDIATELY BY THE LOW ROTOR RPM WARNING HORN SOUNDING. ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^FURTHER STATED THAT HE HAD A FORWARD AIRSPEED OF APPROXIMATELY 35 KNOTS WHILE DESCENDING AT APPROXIMATELY 300 FEET PER MINUTE. HE IMMEDIATELY ?DUMPED? THE COLLECTIVE CONTROL AND PULLED BACK ON THE CYCLIC CONTROL. I INQUIRED IF PRIOR TO STRIKING THE GROUND DID HE SUPPLY ANY POWER OR UP COLLECTIVE CONTROL, TO WHICH HE REPLIED THAT HE DID NOT. I ALSO ASKED HIM IF AT ANY TIME PRECEDING OR DURING THE SERIES OF EVENTS JUST DESCRIBED DID HE NOTICE ANYTHING ABNORMAL WITH THE HELICOPTER SUCH AS POWER OR FLIGHT CONTROL DEFICIENCIES TO WHICH HE REPLIED HE DID NOT WITH THE EXCEPTION OF THE AIRFRAME SHUDDER OR VIBRATION PRIOR TO THE WARNING HORN SOUNDING. ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^WAS IN THE HOSPITAL BEING TREATED FOR HIS INJURIES SUSTAINED IN THE ACCIDENT AT THE TIME OF THE INTERVIEW. IN ADDITION,^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^DID SUBMIT A WRITTEN STATEMENT WHICH PROVIDES FURTHER DETAIL IN THE EVENTS SURROUNDING THE ACCIDENT. IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^RECOLLECTION OF HIS ALTITUDE JUST PRIOR TO THE LOW ROTOR RPM WARNING HORN SOUNDING WAS ?AROUND 40 FEET FROM THE GROUND" WHICH DIFFERS SLIGHTLY FROM HIS PREVIOUSLY PROVIDED STATEMENT. ADDITIONALLY, THERE IS SOME CONFUSION REGARDING WHICH PAD THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR DISEMBARKED FROM THE AIRCRAFT TO OBSERVE THE STUDENT. IT IS MY OPINION THAT EITHER OF THESE DISCREPANCIES DO NOT APPRECIABLY AFFECT THE FINAL OUTCOME OF THE INVESTIGATION. HOWEVER, IN THE WRITTEN STATEMENT PROVIDED BY THE STUDENT HE DOES STATE THAT HE WAS ?IN A PANICKED STATE? WHEN HE HEARD THE LOW ROTOR RPM WARNING HORN SOUND. BASED ON THE INFORMATION PROVIDED BY THE STUDENT AS WELL AS THE FLIGHT INSTRUCTOR IT APPEARS THE FLIGHT PROFILE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING THE ACCIDENT WAS CONTRARY TO THE ROBINSON R-22, PILOT?S OPERATING HANDBOOK.
AT THIS TIME THERE ARE NO VERIFIABLE EQUIPMENT OR ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS WHICH WOULD BE CONSTRUED AS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT. IT APPEARS THE PRIMARY CAUSE OF THE ACCIDENT IS A STALL WHICH WAS A RESULT OF PILOT INDUCED ERROR.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.