FTW04LA111 · Brantly Helicopter B-2B
Brantly Helicopter B-2B · Accident: airframe, component or system failure while maneuvering
From Finney Field (T47) to an unrecorded destination
Event
- NTSB case
- FTW04LA111
- Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
- Accident
- InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
- Completed
- API-reported fatalities
- 0 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
- General aviation
- WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
- Visual Meteorological Cond
Brantly Helicopter B-2B
- Aircraft type
- Brantly B-2
- Category
- Helicopter
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- N9030Z
- Operator
- Kevin Hines
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Finney Field (T47), Wichita Falls, TXTo not recorded
- Aircraft age
- Not recorded
- Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
- Part 91: General Aviation
- Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
- Maneuvering
- First occurrenceThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
- Airframe, component or system failure
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Substantial
Cause areas
- Maintenance, alignment › Excessive
- Manufacturer › Condition(s)/step(s) insufficiently defined
- Rotor drive system, tail rotor drive shaft › Fatigue
- Rotor drive system, tail rotor drive shaft › Sheared
Approximate · Coordinates from the NTSB case API, which marks them as estimated or does not say; no uncertainty radius is established.
NTSB narrative
The 14,600-hour flight instructor was providing the 3,600-hour commercial pilot flight instruction when the helicopter began a slow, uncommanded right turn that could not be arrested with left anti-torque pedal. As the flight instructor leveled the helicopter to land, he closed the throttle, added more collective, and contacted the ground in a sideward motion and rolled over. Examination of the helicopter revealed that the upper tail rotor shaft had completely sheared off at the upper bevel gear bolt hole. A review of the maintenance records revealed the helicopter had previously experienced two hard landings and this was the second time the shaft had failed. In a separate incident, another B-2B owner reported an upper tail rotor shaft failure while in a low hover. However, there was no history of any hard landings. Both failed upper tail rotor shafts were sent to the Safety Board's Materials Laboratory, Washington DC, for examination. Results of the examination revealed that both upper shafts failed due to fatigue at the bolt hole where the shaft attached to the bevel gear. The area outside both bolt holes exhibited fretting, gouging and pitting, which resulted in a fatigue crack and subsequent torsional shear of the shafts. The manufacturer conducted an engineering study and concluded that the most probable cause for the upper tail rotor shafts failing was excessive misalignment due to external forces or improper maintenance. A review of the maintenance manual revealed there was information for inspections after a hard landing but there were no specific procedures for checking the alignment of the upper tail rotor shaft. As a result of the investigation, the manufacturer issued Service Bulletin Number 105: Tail Rotor Drive System Inspection, which directed owners to inspect the condition of the upper tail rotor shaft and parts in that assembly. In addition, they issued Service Instruction Number 10, which described maintenance procedures to remove, disassemble and then reassemble and install the upper tail rotor gearbox. At the time of this report, the manufacturer was scheduled to release Service Instructions Number 11 and 12, and also Service Bulletin Number 106. They have requested the FAA to upgrade Service Bulletin Number 106 to an Airworthiness Directive (AD), which would require all owners to inspect the dimensions that affect the alignment of the upper tail rotor shaft. If any of the shafts were found to have operated outside of the alignment tolerances they would have to be replaced.
Probable cause
The failure of the upper tail rotor shaft due to excessive misalignment after two hard landings. Also causal was the manufacturer's failure to provide specific maintenance procedures for checking the alignment of the upper tail rotor shaft.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record FTW04LA111
- Event ID
- 20040428X00528
- Case number
- FTW04LA111
- Dataset
- historical-pre2008
- Source SHA-256
- 89e2df6d848e7ab3b42e7d7c7a03ff403303057a26ca04c95b3ea67201c3ce74
Source notes (4)
- Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
- Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status, coordinates. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
- The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
- API snapshot SHA-256: 08ffd8227ac1c44b2e0632b92b90973386d0729c03024f3df9b3b4f7a4ff50f1; retrieved 2026-09-21T19:15:40.000Z.