I think the on-looker's comment on the audio sums it up pretty well...

Looks to me like an experienced and high skilled pilot.
Holds his act together after the initial event in a way that I doubt many others would.

Perhaps sitting on the left he wasn't expecting the ground so soon, believing that it was at the height of the ground slightly to the left of his path where he eventually finished, which is probably where his eye was?

Asking AnFI about what makes him "think" is a lost cause.

He does not.....as evidenced by his post and suggestion the choice of Pilot Seats could be the cause of the helicopter's amazing slalom path down the mountain side.

Sadly....it was a single engine machine thus we are spared AnFI's usual rubbish about Singles v/ Twins.

Since when does the seat you are sitting in make a difference ??? The view out of either seat is effectively the same from distance . What you are saying is that the ground was higher than he thought so he hit it ....i guess that means that if he had been in the other seat he would think was lower than he was...so would have been too high . If thats your level of skill Anfi we had better get a seat in the middle for you !!

and as for .... Holds his act together after the initial event in a way that I doubt many others would.
Well if he just hit hard why did he lift off again? Not knowing what damage had been caused ...only to put it down on a steep slope and stay upright by pure luck !! I would have thought that dumping collective and sticking it on the ground at first impact was the only sensible thing to do especially as this was the only flat bit . If that had been a steeper hill it could have been curtains ...

Does he get to count this as one, two, or three landings? Actually happened Sept 29, 2018
I thought this thinking went away after WWI? (I remember it in Wind in the Wires by Duncan Grinnell-Milne )

Ski Apache Helicopter Crash Caused By Down Draft "Hitting Dead Air" News report

“Unfortunately, they were on the side of the cliff and the helicopter went down into the lower part of the resort’s parking lot and landed again. There was minimal damage to the tail section of the helicopter, but they decided to take the blades out and it was trucked out. There were minor injuries to the nurses on board, they were complaining of elbow and shoulder pain. The pilot was fine.”-Sierra Blanca Regional Airport Manager Sean Parker
At first it was reported the pilot was avoiding a cable and that’s what caused this rough landing at Ski Apache in New Mexico but Ruidoso News now reports the landing, which left the medivac helicopter unflyable and injured a nurse, is blamed on a downdraft:
“They believe when the pilot was coming in, it was not mechanical or anything like that. The winds were whipping around and shifting, so when the helicopter was coming in to land, it either got a down-draft or a severe change in the wind, which created a very hard landing.”
The National Transportation Safety Board was contacted but officials quickly closed the case: “Because there were no major injuries or damage to the aircraft, they immediately released the case and they didn’t want to do any further investigation.”

The NTSB reports the aircraft is N894NA, owned by ROBERTS AIRCRAFT CO, out of Cheyenne Wy, which seems now being operated as Trans Aero Ltd, which partnered with EMSRx to form Trans Aero MedEvac in 2016.

No interest in investigating an EMS Helicopter Accident....one that required the aircraft to be trucked back to Base?

Gee....any wonder why the US EMS Industry is what it is?

I would think one casual viewing of the Video by a qualified Helicopter Pilot would yield curiosity as to what really happened?

Not saying the initial impact was a direct pilot error situation....but afterwards....Geez Louise!

Nigelh nits the nail on the head!

Absent full details of what happened and a full explanation of the Pilot's actions....we cannot fairly levy criticism but we sure can ask questions.

It is absolutely a wonder that the aircraft did not wind up in a burning ball somewhere along the way.

While I agree that I wish the NTSB would look at this closer, it does not meet the NTSB/FAA definition of an accident, from the NTSB home page:

Hey SAS, a bit more on the NTSB investigation process. I wouldn't call it "No interest in investigating an EMS Helicopter Accident" – that’s just not how it's all set up. First, let me qualify this response by allowing that while I'm now reaching a few years back memory-wise, my mad-cow is in slight remission today and unless they've radically changed their operational baseline, this should be kinduv close as to how NTSB investigations are (or were) assigned.

The NTSB has established five, accident/ incident investigative categories;

1) Major Investigation: The big show straight out of DC - major air-carrier and large cargo carrier accidents. This is the one with the "Go Teams" wearing their official NTSB jackets and reflective vests and logo'd polo shirts and the official dedicated press/ media relations dude or dudette and lots of cameras hanging around.

2) Major Investigation - Regional: Less serious accident or incident but with significant safety issues attached and are assigned to one of six (I believe) regional offices. Most non-fatal major airline accidents/ incidents and most commuter airline accident investigations begin at this level. May still get to see a few official NTSB jackets or a vest here and again – if the cameras show up.

3) Field investigation: Airline accident or incident with no fatalities (e.g., severe turbulence resulting in structural damage and/ or injury(ies), you know…, we hit the turbulence and I bumped my head on the ceiling). Most General Aviation accidents are classified in this category. Here, at least one regional investigator is assigned and responds to the accident site. Will most likely see an official NTSB jacket and/ or reflective vest - especially if he/ she is the sole NTSB investigator so as to designate who the HMF in charge is.

4) Limited Investigation: A limited (or "desk") investigation is carried out over the phone and/ or mail in response to a General Aviation "event". They usually don’t wear their official NTSB jackets or reflective vests at their desks but you may see an official logo’d polo shirt.

5) Delegated Investigation: These investigations are "delegated" to the FAA. Rotorcraft, homebuilts, restricted category, all light (12,500 lbs) fixed-wing aircraft unless they involved fatalities or a mid-air collision are “delegated”. The FAA is supposed to conduct the investigation and report the findings to the NTSB and the Safety Board will then determine a probable cause as necessary. In 45 years of flying, I’ve never seen an official FAA jacket or reflective vest or logo’d polo shirt, so look for a guy or gal with a wad of official looking plastic identification badges hanging from their neck.

Any of the lesser (2 - 5) categories may be elevated to a higher investigative level as necessary (all the way to an HQ led investigation) depending on need and the complexities of the accident and/ or investigation process.

Hope that helps.

Oh, and by the way… I may not be no rocket surgeon or no Norman Einstein, but I watched the video and I know what happened and I know that you know what happened and no investigation by the FAA, NTSB, KGB or CIA (no, not the FBI - the FBI couldn’t find snow in the middle of a blizzard) is gonna change that.

Carry on.

Just looking a the trees you can see there is no movement on them to suggest any downdraughting, no sign of cloud tendrils drifting down the hill (another good clue to downdraughts) and no obvious large areas of shade and sun (enough to cause a katabatic wind) - just a poorly flown approach......and the dust post-impact would suggest a somewhat downwind one...as mentioned by RVDT and jellycopter earlier in the thread

I recall a statement from TSB in canada about their threshold to conduct an investigation. Although the exact words escape me, perhaps its on their website, (its sunday and I'm in my jammies with a tea and am too lazy to search for it.)
it pretty well summed it up as an investigation will only take place if there is an outcome to further enhance safety. Referring to the incident of carb icing on a small plane, there was nothing new to learn, so the investigation was minimal.
Me thinks another down wind landing crunch fits that category

That's pretty much it. No serious injuries, minimal damage and it's obvious what the cause is. Really nothing to be investigated from the accident prevention aspect. They leave it to the FAA if there is any enforcement action to be investigated.

Nigel says:Well, see Nigel, no offense but if you were a more experienced pilot you wouldn't have to ask this question. As the Astar pilot terminated his "approach," I'm certain that he was expecting the ship to settle into a ground-cushion of sorts and/or at least slow its rate of descent. I can assure you that he had the maximum amount of collective pulled and maybe a little bit more. Due to all this power applied, when the ship hit the ground, it bounced back into the air before the "pilot" could react. At that point, slamming the collective down wouldn't have been wise. The impact probably stunned him and maybe he froze on the controls for a sec.

We have to acknowledge that not every helicopter pilot is Chuck Yeager/Aaron. Some of us are exceedingly average stick-pushers even though in our mind we are God's gift to aviation. Secondly, pilots freeze. We don't like to admit it - and we pompously think it'll never happen to *us*, oh no! But it does, more often than you'd think. I've seen it often. I've had pilots sheepishly and shamefully admit to me privately that when the poop hit the fan all they did was hang on. For some, it worked out okay; not so for others. It always makes me wonder how I'll react when it gets really, really out of hand. So far I haven't had to find out.

But this Astar driver should have been able to see that he had no (or very little) airspeed and a screaming rate of descent for the altitude and temperature of the LZ - and he should've done something about it before getting torn to shreds in the various internet forums.

Let's cut him some slack.

Really?

You base your evaluation upon what?

Care to present your information that underlies that opinion.....what did really happen and how do you know it to be the true account?

What is the. obvious cause to which you refer with such certainty?

I suppose a big amount of his thoughts are based on the NTSB declining to investigate??? I dunno, but that tells me something pretty clear cut. No need to tie up an investigation team for a year to tell us the common denominator.
im all for make work projects...most times

Given the NTSB statement: https://unofficialnetworks.com/2018/10/05/ski-apache-helicopter-crash-caused-by-down-draft-hitting-dead-air/,

Watching the video of an EMS AStar making a fast steep approach at an LZ that is 9800 PA (temp probably 60-65 F, DA 12000+) I would be surprised if it didn't bounce a couple of times yawing to the left.

Call it intuition:)

FH1100 you said ...."Well, see Nigel, no offense but if you were a more experienced pilot you wouldn't have to ask this question ".................
Good to see our hat munching Bell design expert is out of bed. You do seem to have gone very quiet about your predictions for the 505 never going into production ..let alone it would only do 120 knots , would have end plates etc etc etc !!! ( and you ask me why i pick on you ....!!! )
...But reference it doesnt look to me like he is pulling ALL collective ( not scientific but just going by the sound and the lack of any yaw to the left ) .. he does leave his flare very very late . With such dropping ground just feet from the landing point you would have thought that was a very good escape route if he found he didnt have power to stop rod ? Anyway either way a very lucky fella !!

LRP, my reading of your linked article and the links within it....clearly show it was NOT the NTSB that were being quoted when it comes to the identifying the cause of the accident.

The internal links reported the Pilot told someone the aircraft had encountered "dead air".

NTSB was notified but elected not to investigate the accident because it did not meet their Criteria that determines whether they investigate or not.

So who do I believe when it comes the "cause" of the accident....the Pilot as quoted in the Ruidoso news article, the Sheriff Sheppard who was quoted in the same article, or the airport manager mentioned in your linked article.....as it surely was not the NTSB that made a determination after investigating.

Your "intuition" might very well be right....certainly will not argue your thoughts re the high DA being a contributing factor as well as a very steep approach.

Then if there was a wind that was changing directions....then we can visualize conditions very much a situation that could be problematic especially if the weight of the aircraft exceeded the weight allowed by the Performance Charts.

Do we know if the Pilot did those calculations prior to commencing the approach?

Do we know what the wind actually was at the time of the accident?

It would appear the aircraft had adequate hover performance and tail rotor authority as the aircraft lifted into a hover after the initial contact with the ground before taking its sled ride down the slope.

But....was that lift off due to exceeding limitations?

We know one thing for sure.....the odds of a proper investigation being reported in the public domain just is not going to happen.

Unless it is the FAA that does an official investigation and then at some point the Report will be made public per FAA Procedures and Policy.