NTSB preliminary report accuracy importance
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
From: USA
NTSB preliminary report accuracy importance
Hey guys, new account as I've never posted. Have my SEL PPL (little over 100h in 172s) and have been working on my rotory wing addon.
As I was progressing through training, we got to the point we were beginning work on simulated autorotations. Unfortunately on the very first demonstration the engine in our 2023 R44 Raven II (~100h on airframe) failed and we were forced into doing an actual autorotation where substantial damage was done to the airframe (I have cockpit video but I can't post links).
What I'm hoping you can help me understand is how important the narrative in the preliminary report is and if I'm overreacting that the narrative has this sentence "While enroute to the practice area, the instructor discussed the maneuver before the student pilot took control of the helicopter and entered a simulated autorotation". The tail is N6960 if you want to read the whole thing.
I was not in control of the helicopter and I did not enter the simulated autorotation. The video and my instructor's narrative (that he shared with me and I found accurate) does not show this. I texted my instructor and the owner of the flight school in a rather heated group text as I'm assuming that these reports can be important for insurance and other purposes, and I felt like there was just too much incentive for the flight to be spun this way for it to be unintentional...
Am I overreacting as to the importance of the accuracy here?
As I was progressing through training, we got to the point we were beginning work on simulated autorotations. Unfortunately on the very first demonstration the engine in our 2023 R44 Raven II (~100h on airframe) failed and we were forced into doing an actual autorotation where substantial damage was done to the airframe (I have cockpit video but I can't post links).
What I'm hoping you can help me understand is how important the narrative in the preliminary report is and if I'm overreacting that the narrative has this sentence "While enroute to the practice area, the instructor discussed the maneuver before the student pilot took control of the helicopter and entered a simulated autorotation". The tail is N6960 if you want to read the whole thing.
I was not in control of the helicopter and I did not enter the simulated autorotation. The video and my instructor's narrative (that he shared with me and I found accurate) does not show this. I texted my instructor and the owner of the flight school in a rather heated group text as I'm assuming that these reports can be important for insurance and other purposes, and I felt like there was just too much incentive for the flight to be spun this way for it to be unintentional...
Am I overreacting as to the importance of the accuracy here?
Moderator
Joined: Oct 2022
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 913
Likes: 417
From: NYC
The initial Reports often contain erroneous information and during the course of the Accident Investigation you shall no doubt be able to provide your account of the event to the Investigators.
Be professional in your relating your account and just tell the Investigator what you know, what your perceptions of how it all played out and don't worry much about the preliminary reporting.
If you have a video of the event that shall speak for itself I would assume.
When the Investigator asks you a question just respond in a factual straight forward manner and simply tell the truth....whatever it is.
You were the Student under the supervision of your Instructor and it is he that is reaponsible for the aircraft and its occupants.
Be professional in your relating your account and just tell the Investigator what you know, what your perceptions of how it all played out and don't worry much about the preliminary reporting.
If you have a video of the event that shall speak for itself I would assume.
When the Investigator asks you a question just respond in a factual straight forward manner and simply tell the truth....whatever it is.
You were the Student under the supervision of your Instructor and it is he that is reaponsible for the aircraft and its occupants.
Joined: Sep 2003
Posts: 2,081
Likes: 189
From: Redding CA, or on a fire somewhere
You are over reacting. You, as a student pilot with a CFI on board you are not liable. The report also states:
Which is good for you. The only downside is, the FAA and not the NTSB will prolly take your statement as there were no injuries….The NTSB does not deal with these other than writing the report.
If you hav any issues, just cite the NTSB Walkup case, known as the “Walkup Decision”, which basically will put the CFI at fault.
Walkup Case
Although it was challenged and is now under the latest name…..old timers still call it Walkup.
the instructor lowered the collective, applied aft cyclic, right pedal, and rolled off the throttle to idle.
If you hav any issues, just cite the NTSB Walkup case, known as the “Walkup Decision”, which basically will put the CFI at fault.
Walkup Case
Although it was challenged and is now under the latest name…..old timers still call it Walkup.
Last edited by Gordy; 25th November 2024 at 05:15.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
From: USA
I really appreciate the input!
I'm not really worried about fault as far as the gov is concerned, what I'm more worried about is getting embroiled in an insurance fraud case as I think these findings have an impact on those proceedings? I don't have enough experience in the industry to know if this is the case if I'm the one in control of the aircraft at the time.
One thing that makes me particularly worried here is that the school had me sign their insurance form right after the incident, which seemed pretty odd at the time as I have not even soloed.
We have been working with the NTSB, and I sent an email yesterday to the investigator that my instructor has been speaking with (my instructor provided the address). They tried to reach me a couple times immediately after the accident but we just kept missing eachother on the phone.
They have had the video from a day or two after the crash, which I also assumed would speak for itself as we did a control exchange to my instructor immediately before the maneuver (I flew to the training area). This is why I'm incredibly confused how this description could have found its way into the report.
I'm not really worried about fault as far as the gov is concerned, what I'm more worried about is getting embroiled in an insurance fraud case as I think these findings have an impact on those proceedings? I don't have enough experience in the industry to know if this is the case if I'm the one in control of the aircraft at the time.
One thing that makes me particularly worried here is that the school had me sign their insurance form right after the incident, which seemed pretty odd at the time as I have not even soloed.
We have been working with the NTSB, and I sent an email yesterday to the investigator that my instructor has been speaking with (my instructor provided the address). They tried to reach me a couple times immediately after the accident but we just kept missing eachother on the phone.
They have had the video from a day or two after the crash, which I also assumed would speak for itself as we did a control exchange to my instructor immediately before the maneuver (I flew to the training area). This is why I'm incredibly confused how this description could have found its way into the report.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 270
From: USA
And from the sound of it your NTSB IIC did not travel to the scene so they are relying on 3rd parties for info to write the Prelim Report. But its not unusual to have discrepancies in the report like the ones you are witnessing. As they get into the Factual Report/Public Docket the details will be worked out and then the Final Report will be released with the Probable Cause of this accident.
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 52
From: Pensacola, Florida
Hmm, a practice auto demo that resulted in a crash? Sounds like your instructor wasn't very proficient in autos! We will be interested to read the final report to see how much...or how little...experience this instructor has. (Wrecking a brand-new R-44? I suppose he is an ex-employee of Takeflight now.) Anyway, lesson learned: Any time you roll the throttle off in a helicopter, expect the engine to quit. Just expect it, no big deal. Harry Reasoner's treatise on helicopter pilots still applies. Or ought to.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
From: USA
Hmm, a practice auto demo that resulted in a crash? Sounds like your instructor wasn't very proficient in autos! We will be interested to read the final report to see how much...or how little...experience this instructor has. (Wrecking a brand-new R-44? I suppose he is an ex-employee of Takeflight now.) Anyway, lesson learned: Any time you roll the throttle off in a helicopter, expect the engine to quit. Just expect it, no big deal. Harry Reasoner's treatise on helicopter pilots still applies. Or ought to.
If anyone is to blame it's the anachronistic state of technology that the aviation sector finds itself in outside of corporate and large commercial carriers. I'm from the tech sector, and I'm frankly embarrased by how little advancement the industry has made since I got my SEL ticket over a decade ago by skrimping and scraping for every hour. When I came back to get current, the C172 I got into was older than me, had wires hanging out of the dash, and oil dripping onto the nose gear tire, and then for some reason the instructor told me not to use the rudder to coordinate turns (suspect they'd had maintenance issues). Needless to say I did not take a second flight before just moving on to my rotorwing training.
Because of this we run into policies at flight schools that don't allow full-down autos, or off-airport landings, because of the inherent possiblility of damage to the aircraft. How on earth are you supposed to do the right thing in an emergency situation if you never get the chance to actually practice the full maneuver?
If you care about this industry, you might want to direct your bile somewhere more productive than the people trying to make it something better everyday, taking their and their student's lives into their hands with subpar equipment harangued by regulation and the old guard. I think soon a lot of us are going to wake up to a disruption to aviation as big as spacex did to the fat and happy incumbent space industry.
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 880
Likes: 225
From: Australia
...Because of this we run into policies at flight schools that don't allow full-down autos, or off-airport landings, because of the inherent possibility of damage to the aircraft. How on earth are you supposed to do the right thing in an emergency situation if you never get the chance to actually practice the full maneuver?...
I wasn't sure what you meant by "anachronistic state of technology" and "subpar equipment"? Did you intend for that to apply to the R44 of the incident you mentioned, or the fixed wing aircraft you referred to? If a rudder on an aircraft is suspected of not functioning as intended, it should be examined and serviced if necessary whether it is on a 2024 built aircraft or a vintage aircraft.
Last edited by helispotter; 26th November 2024 at 09:22.
Fleet Manager
Joined: Aug 2006
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 7,081
Likes: 2,938
From: Ontario, Canada
Josh, as others have correctly said, your instructor was PIC - his role, and your participation in the event are entirely clear. The NTSB does not always get everything right, and for a no injury event, there is a lower threshold of detail in report. You are entitled to request that information in the report is more correct, if you can clearly demonstrate there is an error. All that said, you were not a causal factor in the accident, so it was an accident, for which you were not PIC, the insurer has no interest in your involvement, other than being happy that you were not injured.
Yeah, same for me, I have only done full on autos from the hover, they were disallowed from altitude entries after the school wrecked an SW300 training one (before my time there). From discussions I had, I understand that the insurer considers it a likely writeoff if there's an engine failure. As long as everyone survives, it's within their risk plan. If a real autrotation results in a reusable helicopter, bonus!
I have been involved in a number of accident investigations over the decades, including as PIC instructor for one. We were both badly hurt, and it was still a low threshold ("class 5") investigation, for which no report was ever produced - "Nothing new to learn here" was the Investigator's comment about there not being a report. I have learned that investigators can be out of their depth in some cases.
I'm assisting the NTSB now in commenting a draft report for an accident (I was not otherwise involved in any way). Though the investigator is diligent, and a lot of resource has been applied to analyzing this sad accident, I can see that there are sometimes specialist skills necessary to highlight "in the weeds" details which maybe factors, and the NTSB simply cannot employ enough people to have all of these skills for all types and regimes of flying. That said, getting the report right for a training accident in an R44, when both pilots can provide a detailed description of the event should be pretty basic.
A bumpy start to your training, but stay with it, you obviously have a good attitude!
Because of this we run into policies at flight schools that don't allow full-down autos, or off-airport landings, because of the inherent possiblility of damage to the aircraft. How on earth are you supposed to do the right thing in an emergency situation if you never get the chance to actually practice the full maneuver?
I have been involved in a number of accident investigations over the decades, including as PIC instructor for one. We were both badly hurt, and it was still a low threshold ("class 5") investigation, for which no report was ever produced - "Nothing new to learn here" was the Investigator's comment about there not being a report. I have learned that investigators can be out of their depth in some cases.
I'm assisting the NTSB now in commenting a draft report for an accident (I was not otherwise involved in any way). Though the investigator is diligent, and a lot of resource has been applied to analyzing this sad accident, I can see that there are sometimes specialist skills necessary to highlight "in the weeds" details which maybe factors, and the NTSB simply cannot employ enough people to have all of these skills for all types and regimes of flying. That said, getting the report right for a training accident in an R44, when both pilots can provide a detailed description of the event should be pretty basic.
A bumpy start to your training, but stay with it, you obviously have a good attitude!
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
From: USA
What I was trying to convey is that "wrecking a brand-new R44" is besides the point. It doesn't matter if you're flying a 50 year old 172 or a 6 month old R44 with fuel-injection and AC, these machines are using archaic tech invented over half a century ago, and it seems like the manufacturers and regulators have settled into enjoying it that way because of the massive amounts of cash it produces from the natural protectionism it creates for the incumbents, just like old space enjoyed. I would absolutely love to start a company in an industry where I could do R&D once and make money on it for 50 years without worrying about competition.
And that's just on the hardware side of things, before looking at how impentetrable the industry is at the flight line and how that exacerbates costs and drives operators to minimize things like maintenance to the minimum possible under the regulations. This was the experience I had.
It feels like we are risking the lives of our future pilots, our friends, and our families by settling for this status quo. In my opinion, more of the money flowing through aviation should be going towards improving it rather than going into the pockets of middle men profiting from regulatory capture and artificial scarcity.
And that's just on the hardware side of things, before looking at how impentetrable the industry is at the flight line and how that exacerbates costs and drives operators to minimize things like maintenance to the minimum possible under the regulations. This was the experience I had.
It feels like we are risking the lives of our future pilots, our friends, and our families by settling for this status quo. In my opinion, more of the money flowing through aviation should be going towards improving it rather than going into the pockets of middle men profiting from regulatory capture and artificial scarcity.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
From: USA
However, part of the reason I restarted my flight training was because I wanted to see if there was a way I could contribute to the industry for my second career, where being a pilot is not the primary skill I'd be bringing. It has absolutely given me more to think about than I expected.
Joined: Oct 2006
Aviation Qualifications: A&P
Posts: 1,346
Likes: 270
From: USA
It doesn't matter if you're flying a 50 year old 172 or a 6 month old R44 with fuel-injection and AC, these machines are using archaic tech invented over half a century ago, and it seems like the manufacturers and regulators have settled into enjoying it that way because of the massive amounts of cash it produces from the natural protectionism it creates for the incumbents, just like old space enjoyed.
In my opinion, more of the money flowing through aviation should be going towards improving it rather than going into the pockets of middle men profiting from regulatory capture and artificial scarcity.
Joined: Nov 2010
Posts: 880
Likes: 225
From: Australia
... It doesn't matter if you're flying a 50 year old 172 or a 6 month old R44 with fuel-injection and AC, these machines are using archaic tech invented over half a century ago, and it seems like the manufacturers and regulators have settled into enjoying it that way...
Taking one extreme, you could say we are still using the same basic concept of wings that the Wright brothers used. But that doesn't mean wings are archaic.
Some years ago Cessna had developed a new design of light aircraft that was composite construction, but it seemed to have been a dud. As I understand, the limited numbers produced were re-acquired by Cessna and demolished. Not sure what went wrong. After that you could understand Cessna would be wary of trying anything new in the light GA market and would stick to a proven design, even if the airframe is dated.
I should also add that it isn't really the regulators that need to be innovative. Regulators need to work with industry to address proposed new technologies to make sure they have acceptable levels of safety. For example when "fly by wire" was introduced, or to deal with uncrewed aircraft, or battery powered aircraft etc.
Thread Starter
Joined: Nov 2024
Posts: 6
Likes: 3
From: USA
Josh, I recommend you start a new thread along the lines of "Archaic technology in the General Aviation sector" to see what spread of views you get back. But you should give more specific examples of areas you see as archaic technology on say a Cessna 172 or a Robinson R44. For example, are you saying the engine tech is old?, instrumentation?, structural materials?, aerodynamic design?, safety aids available to the pilots?
I really appreciate everyone's input on the original topic, I feel a lot better about what's going on with the report now.
Joined: Oct 1999
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 7,371
Likes: 926
From: Den Haag
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 803
Likes: 52
From: Pensacola, Florida
If you care about this industry, you might want to direct your bile somewhere more productive than the people trying to make it something better everyday, taking their and their student's lives into their hands with subpar equipment harangued by regulation and the old guard. I think soon a lot of us are going to wake up to a disruption to aviation as big as spacex did to the fat and happy incumbent space industry.
Whoa, whoa, whoa there, big fella! I think that it's you who's spewing the bile. Let's get a few things straight. 1) If a helicopter engine quits unexpectedly, and the pilot crashes and wrecks the ship but the people walk away...great! Good job, pat on the back, blah blah blah. But if that pilot is a CFI and he is about to demonstrate a maneuver in which he deliberately simulates an engine failure, then he damn well better be able to set the thing down successfully, without damage to the a/c and persons onboard. Period. 2) You can make all the excuses you want about how "the industry" or the particular operators discourage (or even disallow) full-down autos in training because of the increased risk. That's fine. But from a personal standpoint, a r/w CFI who is not proficient in touchdown autos has no business teaching autorotations to others. Your instructor didn't heroically save your lives! He f'ed-up. If it were my flight school and the guy just wrecked one of my brand-new R-44's because he couldn't do a touchdown auto, he'd be out looking for another job. That's not bile; that's just the cold, hard facts of life (as Porter Wagoner sang).
Josh, I don't know what you expect out of the aviation industry. You seem frustrated and maybe even angry at what you perceive as the slow speed of adoption of some unspecified "new technology." You fantasize that there is a revolution possible for general aviation similar to what Elon has done for the space industry. Dream on, big boy. Yes, it is true that the FAA acts very slowly and conservatively...for a reason. They do not rush to approve new technology that would replace existing, proven technology. This is why the ancient C-172 you cited is pretty much the same basic airplane as a brand-new one off the assembly line today: It works. I'm not sure what Cessna could do to improve it that would meet with your approval. Perhaps you have some suggestions? On the r/w side, the Cabri isn't all that much more technologically advanced than an R-22, to be honest, except that it takes up more space in the hangar. Should we all be flying in turbine-powered trainers (R-66's, say)? That'd be great, but it would also put the cost of attaining a r/w certificate out of reach of most aspiring students. I'm telling you, man, the entire aviation industry eagerly awaits your suggestions as to how it can be improved at a cost that would work with the low-volume production levels of the various products. As Ross Perot once said, I'm all ears.
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,289
Likes: 289
From: Poplar Grove, IL, USA
If anyone is to blame it's the anachronistic state of technology that the aviation sector finds itself in outside of corporate and large commercial carriers. I'm from the tech sector, and I'm frankly embarrased by how little advancement the industry has made since I got my SEL ticket over a decade ago by skrimping and scraping for every hour.
Joined: Mar 2005
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 6,562
Likes: 952
From: Aus
anachronistic state of technology that the aviation sector finds itself in
Joined: May 2016
Posts: 88
Likes: 18
From: USA
If anyone is to blame it's the anachronistic state of technology that the aviation sector finds itself in outside of corporate and large commercial carriers. I'm from the tech sector, and I'm frankly embarrased by how little advancement the industry has made since I got my SEL ticket over a decade ago by skrimping and scraping for every hour.
Joined: Dec 2023
Posts: 55
Likes: 97
From: Torrance, CA
What I was trying to convey is that "wrecking a brand-new R44" is besides the point. It doesn't matter if you're flying a 50 year old 172 or a 6 month old R44 with fuel-injection and AC, these machines are using archaic tech invented over half a century ago, and it seems like the manufacturers and regulators have settled into enjoying it that way because of the massive amounts of cash it produces from the natural protectionism it creates for the incumbents, just like old space enjoyed. I would absolutely love to start a company in an industry where I could do R&D once and make money on it for 50 years without worrying about competition.
And that's just on the hardware side of things, before looking at how impentetrable the industry is at the flight line and how that exacerbates costs and drives operators to minimize things like maintenance to the minimum possible under the regulations. This was the experience I had.
It feels like we are risking the lives of our future pilots, our friends, and our families by settling for this status quo. In my opinion, more of the money flowing through aviation should be going towards improving it rather than going into the pockets of middle men profiting from regulatory capture and artificial scarcity.
And that's just on the hardware side of things, before looking at how impentetrable the industry is at the flight line and how that exacerbates costs and drives operators to minimize things like maintenance to the minimum possible under the regulations. This was the experience I had.
It feels like we are risking the lives of our future pilots, our friends, and our families by settling for this status quo. In my opinion, more of the money flowing through aviation should be going towards improving it rather than going into the pockets of middle men profiting from regulatory capture and artificial scarcity.
Let me personally invite you to Robinson Helicopter’s HQ in Torrance, CA so I can show you where we spend our money. We spend an incredible amount of company resources ($’s and hours) improving the product every year. We actually roll the improvements Into the basic aircraft each year in a volume and frequency that other OEM’s cannot meet. Some recent examples include the fleetwide new Horizontal Stabilizer, the standard ship 4K UHD cockpit cameras, and the impact resistant windscreens. This is just the beginning as we have more then doubled our engineering team since I joined the company last year.
I will be interested to see the results of the investigation and final report. We are very glad you and your instructor are safe.
Feel free to email me at [email protected].
David
