I hesitate to weigh-in on this crash, but as someone who spent a lot of time doing sightseeing tours in grossed-out B-models and "straight" L-models out of E34th Street, I think I know a little about the subject.
First, let us acknowledge that witness statements can be extremely suspect. I've witnessed a couple of helicopter accidents in my life, and was always surprised at how different the recollection was from all the witnesses; even pilots sometimes get it wrong or remember inaccurately.
In a loaded 206B, you absolutely want to do an airspeed-over-altitude takeoff out of 34th Street. There are no obstacles to clear (other than the little bulkhead). You might not have the power (torque) to do otherwise (e.g. climb away). Let us assume that he was at or near MGW with five people and enough fuel for a decent ride around the city. (34th Street is listed as having jet fuel available, so he could have had very little fuel while planning on getting some more after the "tour.") The only thing to do is pull all available power and get try to get 45 knots as quickly as you can so you can start climbing.
Would floats have helped? Sure. Of course. Obviously. The (standard) trigger is millimeters away from my left index finger as I hold the collective. In an engine failure situation one could easily and quickly and without conscious thought blow the floats as the aircraft settled. One would not have to be Chuck Yeager to accomplish this.
But! Witnesses said that the aircraft was either spinning and/or did not enter the water level. They said it looked like the pilot was performing some "daredevil" maneuver. Huh? Okay, that points to a control issue. We are trained and conditioned to keep the aircraft level down near the ground (water).
The pilot in this case was reported to be "experienced" in the 206 with...umm...500 hours make/model. Okay, that's a fair amount and by that time he should know the aircraft and how it flies pretty well. Still, no self-respecting 206 pilot is going to pull some wild aerobatic stunt at such a low altitude as everyone agrees he was when the problem began. Nope, he would simply keep it level and cushion if the engine quits on takeoff.
Uncontrolled yaw (and the pitching that comes with it) is something else. Either tail rotor failure or the dreaded "LTE" that everybody worries about in a 206. But 206's do not get into LTE at sea level. I'm sorry, they just don't. Unless you're trying to hover at a high power setting with a really ripping wind from the right-rear, a 206
at sea level will always have enough tail rotor authority to get the job done.
From the condition of the aircraft as it was pulled out of the water, it sure looks to my uneducated eye that it went in under power: Trans broken from its mounts; one main rotor blade is broken off; and the tailboom is twisted.
But! The pilot has made statements (official and unofficial) that he had an "engine failure" right after takeoff. Here's a link to fairly comprehensive Daily Mail article:
New York helicopter pilot in crash that killed British tourist is 'convicted felon' | Mail Online
And of course the NTSB has just *had* to make their usual statement about how they've found no obvious signs of mechanical failure - as if the ONLY way an engine fails is by exploding. We know from bitter experience that Rolls Royce 250 engines have numerous failure modes, from outright quitting to decels. Governor failure, anyone? PC line failure? Compressor bearing failure? Come on. Even a partial power failure is just as good as a complete engine failure. If the engine won't maintain 100% rpm, you're going down. The NTSB should shut the hell up.
So we have all these conflicting things. And everybody and their mother is asking: WHAT THE HELL HAPPENED?! In this age of instant access to information, we want the answer NOW, by God. We deserve it!
Let's talk about floats for a second. The aircraft was not required to have emergency floats, period. It is obvious that in this case he *should* have had them. But every day, all over the world, single- and twin-engine helicopters without floats make approaches over water to heliports. I've done it many times; you probably have too. Doesn't make it right, and there is always an element of risk, even in a twin. In this most recent case the risks caught up with this pilot. I'm sure he is regretting that now.
Life jackets? They are USELESS unless they are worn. Having them "available" in a helicopter is a joke. There is usually not enough warning or time to put them on.)Let us admit that no matter what the specific FAR requirements are, the passengers should have been wearing PFDs. HOWEVER! Life jackets are of no use whatsoever if you cannot get out of the submerged helicopter. And even properly briefed passengers forget everything you tell them about how to unlatch the seatbelt when panic sets in. People freeze.
When I worked in the Gulf of Mexico for PHI, I carried nothing but people who had flown in helicopters many, many times. Still, sometimes we'd land on a platform and the front seat passenger would grapple and grope unsuccessfully for the seatbelt release, unable to locate it quickly. In every case I would turn to them and say, "Good thing we're not on fire, eh?" God only knows how that woman in N63Q reacted when she found herself suddenly trapped upside down in a helicopter in 70 degree water.
Finally, my opinion on what happened at 34th Street? He was heavy. He was perhaps not the most experienced 206 driver on the block. He was making a takeoff without the benefit of a headwind and, by most accounts a wind that was disadvantageous. Let's say the engine did not quit outright.
Remember how I said that 206's don't get into LTE? Well, that doesn't mean they won't spin. Huh? If you are already at 100% torque and a gust of wind causes you get a small uncommanded right yaw before acheiving ETL, pushing *more* left pedal will cause an overtorque. So we press gently on the left pedal at such high power settings. Once the ship starts to rotate, now you're in a bind. Armchair quarterbacks might say, "Just push the left pedal to the floor!!" Sure, easy, right? And that might have worked, but it also might have caused the MR to droop with the overtorque. You're between a rock and a hard place, and you only have a *very* short time to sort it all out. Once things start going wrong, they start going wrong fast! I'm just saying... That's why you need airspeed: To get the streamlining effect that comes with being above ETL. It sounds to me like the 34th Street pilot may not have gotten above ETL when it all began to unfold.
We do not know exactly what happened, other than whatever caused this event happened pretty quickly, the ship ended up in the water and a passenger died. That pilot will have to live with that for the rest of his life. No matter what was the primary cause (mechanical failure or pilot error), it's not something I'd want on my conscience.