Schweizer 269C-1 N6148V

Summary

On 30 April 1999 at about 16:17 local time, a Schweizer 269C-1 registered N6148V was involved in an accident near Concord, California, United States. 2 people were on board and nobody was injured. The aircraft was substantially damaged. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

30 April 1999 at 16:17

Classification

Accident

Location

Concord, California, United States

Nearest airport

Buchanan (CCR)

Coordinates

37.9999, -122.0306

Aircraft

Schweizer 269C-1

Registration

N6148V

Category

Helicopter

Engines

1

Operator

Not recorded

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Instructional

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Aircraft damage

Substantial

Weather

VMC

Light

Day

NTSB number

LAX99LA166

Nobody was injured.

The inadequate supervision of the student pilot by the flight instructor during the practice autorotation, which resulted in a delayed flare and the tail rotor contacting the ground. A factor was a misinterpreted communication between the flight instructor and student.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

The flight instructor and student were practicing straight-in autorotations with power recoveries. During the first four autorotations, the student was the primary manipulator of the controls. The student was initiating the flare too high and so the instructor told the student that they would do the next approach together with both of them on the controls. During the flare portion of the ensuing autorotation, the stinger struck the runway surface. The tail rotor then contacted the surface and the helicopter yawed 360 degrees to the right and came to rest approximately 100 feet where the tail rotor struck the runway. The main rotor severed the tail boom. The instructor reported that he believed that the student misinterpreted his instructions to mean that he (the instructor) would be making the primary control inputs, whereas, he had intended for the student to make control inputs to initiate the flare. He planned just to follow through on the controls to guide the student to flare a little lower than on the previous attempts. The flight instructor stated that the accident could have been prevented through 'better communication between student and instructor as to who is responsible for initiating a control input during all phases of flight and especially during critical phases.'

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.