What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
The helicopter sustained substantial damage to both tail rotor blades and the tail rotor hub when it was operating at a remote, unimproved landing zone (lz). The PIC made several attempts at landing and did not like the slope, so moved the helicopter slightly each time. On the final landing attempt, the tail rotor impacted an orange backpack on the ground, tearing the backpack and damaging some of its contents. No injuries.
The purpose of the flight was to conduct aerial firefighting training with an external load consisting of a 50 ft longline and a water bucket. The lz consisted of about 2.5 ft tall prairie grass, with the tail of the helicopter going up slope. Upon landing, one of the ground crew informed the PIC of the strike. The pilot was in radio contact with the ground crew during the training. However, during the landing, there was no communication between the ground crew and the pilot either via radio or hand signal.
The pilot performed a self-assessment of the damage sustained to the tail rotor blades and determined that there was less damage than a tail rotor on the same make/model helicopter that had been cleared by maintenance at a previous operator. The PIC flew the helicopter back to base with the ground crew onboard. The pilot reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation.
The PIC and operator noted that during normal operations a ground crew exit the left side of the helicopter with all bags/tools being stacked on the same side. Under most circumstances, the ground crew meets the helicopter at a different location when finished. For this training exercise, the same lz was utilized and the backpack never moved.
As the FAA filed it
THE HELICOPTER SUSTAINED SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE TO BOTH TAIL ROTOR BLADES AND THE TAIL ROTOR HUB WHEN IT WAS OPERATING AT A REMOTE, UNIMPROVED LANDING ZONE (LZ). THE PIC MADE SEVERAL ATTEMPTS AT LANDING AND DID NOT LIKE THE SLOPE, SO MOVED THE HELICOPTER SLIGHTLY EACH TIME. ON THE FINAL LANDING ATTEMPT, THE TAIL ROTOR IMPACTED AN ORANGE BACKPACK ON THE GROUND, TEARING THE BACKPACK AND DAMAGING SOME OF ITS CONTENTS. NO INJURIES.
THE PURPOSE OF THE FLIGHT WAS TO CONDUCT AERIAL FIREFIGHTING TRAINING WITH AN EXTERNAL LOAD CONSISTING OF A 50 FT LONGLINE AND A WATER BUCKET. THE LZ CONSISTED OF ABOUT 2.5 FT TALL PRAIRIE GRASS, WITH THE TAIL OF THE HELICOPTER GOING UP SLOPE. UPON LANDING, ONE OF THE GROUND CREW INFORMED THE PIC OF THE STRIKE. THE PILOT WAS IN RADIO CONTACT WITH THE GROUND CREW DURING THE TRAINING. HOWEVER, DURING THE LANDING, THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE GROUND CREW AND THE PILOT EITHER VIA RADIO OR HAND SIGNAL.
THE PILOT PERFORMED A SELF-ASSESSMENT OF THE DAMAGE SUSTAINED TO THE TAIL ROTOR BLADES AND DETERMINED THAT THERE WAS LESS DAMAGE THAN A TAIL ROTOR ON THE SAME MAKE/MODEL HELICOPTER THAT HAD BEEN CLEARED BY MAINTENANCE AT A PREVIOUS OPERATOR. THE PIC FLEW THE HELICOPTER BACK TO BASE WITH THE GROUND CREW ONBOARD. THE PILOT REPORTED THERE WERE NO PREIMPACT MECHANICAL MALFUNCTIONS OR FAILURES WITH THE AIRFRAME OR THE ENGINE THAT WOULD HAVE PRECLUDED NORMAL OPERATION.
THE PIC AND OPERATOR NOTED THAT DURING NORMAL OPERATIONS A GROUND CREW EXIT THE LEFT SIDE OF THE HELICOPTER WITH ALL BAGS/TOOLS BEING STACKED ON THE SAME SIDE. UNDER MOST CIRCUMSTANCES, THE GROUND CREW MEETS THE HELICOPTER AT A DIFFERENT LOCATION WHEN FINISHED. FOR THIS TRAINING EXERCISE, THE SAME LZ WAS UTILIZED AND THE BACKPACK NEVER MOVED.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.