What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The accident occurred during the practical test portion of a part 141 assistant chief instructor initial checkride in an R-22 helicopter.
After completing most of the tasks planned, they returned to the airport and the ASI asked the applicant if he could fly them back to the pads.
A 3-WAY exchange of controls occurred and the applicant believed at this point the checkride was finished, though that was never stated by the ASI.
Instead of flying to the pads, the ASI positioned the helicopter on taxiway b and announced he was demonstrating an engine failure on takeoff maneuver, and told the applicant to "follow me on the controls."
A power off descent was entered from approx. 125' according to ADS-B data, with a maximum descent rate of 2688 fpm. The descent could not be arrested in the flare via normal control inputs nor with application of power.
The helicopter suffered a hard landing which splayed the skids and incurred substantial damage to the structure.
The ASI stated the applicant was still being evaluated as part of the checkride in a student/cfi role playing scenario, though he did not expect the applicant (who was PIC on the checkride) to intervene during the maneuver.
The applicant believed the maneuver was a demonstration only, not part of the checkride, and that the ASI had the helicopter under control at all times. No injuries were reported by either crewmember.
As the FAA filed it
THE ACCIDENT OCCURRED DURING THE PRACTICAL TEST PORTION OF A PART 141 ASSISTANT CHIEF INSTRUCTOR INITIAL CHECKRIDE IN AN R-22 HELICOPTER.
AFTER COMPLETING MOST OF THE TASKS PLANNED, THEY RETURNED TO THE AIRPORT AND THE ASI ASKED THE APPLICANT IF HE COULD FLY THEM BACK TO THE PADS.
A 3-WAY EXCHANGE OF CONTROLS OCCURRED AND THE APPLICANT BELIEVED AT THIS POINT THE CHECKRIDE WAS FINISHED, THOUGH THAT WAS NEVER STATED BY THE ASI.
INSTEAD OF FLYING TO THE PADS, THE ASI POSITIONED THE HELICOPTER ON TAXIWAY B AND ANNOUNCED HE WAS DEMONSTRATING AN ENGINE FAILURE ON TAKEOFF MANEUVER, AND TOLD THE APPLICANT TO "FOLLOW ME ON THE CONTROLS."
A POWER OFF DESCENT WAS ENTERED FROM APPROX. 125' ACCORDING TO ADS-B DATA, WITH A MAXIMUM DESCENT RATE OF 2688 FPM. THE DESCENT COULD NOT BE ARRESTED IN THE FLARE VIA NORMAL CONTROL INPUTS NOR WITH APPLICATION OF POWER.
THE HELICOPTER SUFFERED A HARD LANDING WHICH SPLAYED THE SKIDS AND INCURRED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO THE STRUCTURE.
THE ASI STATED THE APPLICANT WAS STILL BEING EVALUATED AS PART OF THE CHECKRIDE IN A STUDENT/CFI ROLE PLAYING SCENARIO, THOUGH HE DID NOT EXPECT THE APPLICANT (WHO WAS PIC ON THE CHECKRIDE) TO INTERVENE DURING THE MANEUVER.
THE APPLICANT BELIEVED THE MANEUVER WAS A DEMONSTRATION ONLY, NOT PART OF THE CHECKRIDE, AND THAT THE ASI HAD THE HELICOPTER UNDER CONTROL AT ALL TIMES. NO INJURIES WERE REPORTED BY EITHER CREWMEMBER.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.