ERA21LA387 · Robinson Helicopter Company R44 II

The pilot landed the helicopter following a local sightseeing flight with three friends. Review of surveillance video revealed that, after touchdown, the passenger in the helicopter’s left front seat began removing his shoulder harnesses and headset. The passenger moved the headset to his front when the helicopter began a rapid yaw to its left and rotated around the main rotor mast. After one full revolution, the helicopter lifted rapidly from the ground and climbed immediately out of the camera’s view as it continued to rotate rapidly around the main rotor mast. Seconds later, the helicopter descended back into view in an uncontrolled descent. The main rotor disc severed the tailboom in two places ahead of the tail section, which included the tailrotor and tailrotor gearbox, before ground contact. The pilot stated that he had reduced the throttle to idle after touchdown; however, review of the video indicated that the helicopter’s main rotor speed remained constant at its maximum rpm throughout the approach, landing, ground operation, and the accident sequence. The accident helicopter make and model was the subject of a Federal Aviation Administration Special Federal Aviation Regulation (SFAR), which specified academic, flight training, qualification, and currency requirements for pilots acting as pilot-in-command. Review of the pilot’s logbook revealed that he had not received the proper endorsements for operating the helicopter as pilot-in-command as a student pilot, nor had he complied with the annual requirements of the SFAR after receiving his private pilot certificate. Additionally, at the time of the accident, he did not meet the currency requirements specified by the SFAR for carrying passengers in the accident helicopter make/model. Examination of the helicopter revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the available information, the pilot’s loss of control and the helicopter’s uncontrolled takeoff was likely due to his misapplication of collective control after landing or his failure to guard the collective against the passenger’s interference. The pilot displayed a history of intentional noncompliance with regulations, including the SFAR and medical certificate requirements. The pilot's loss of helicopter control after landing is consistent with his lack of recent flight experience and his failure to comply with the training and currency requirements of the SFAR.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset