Thursday, December 17, 2015

Amazon in talks to lease 20 jets to launch air cargo business

The online retail giant is looking to expand its delivery operations to avoid the bottlenecks caused by overwhelmed carriers such as UPS. is negotiating to lease 20 Boeing 767 jets for its own air delivery service, cargo industry executives have told The Seattle Times.

The online retail giant wants to build out its own cargo operations to avoid delays from carriers such as United Parcel Service, which have struggled to keep up with the rapid growth of e-commerce.

“Amazon is pretty fed up with the third-party carriers being a bottleneck to their growth,” Robert W. Baird & Co. analyst Colin Sebastian said.

That has led Amazon to consider handling more of its own delivery. A senior aircraft leasing company executive familiar with Amazon’s plans said the company has approached several cargo aircraft lessors to line up the planes. The company has had talks with Air Transport Services Group (ATSG), Atlas Air and Kalitta Air, according to sources, though Kalitta Chief Executive Connie Kalitta denied that he has talked with Amazon.

Leasing 20 jets would be a significant expansion of an Amazon trial operation out of Wilmington, Ohio, operated by ATSG on Amazon’s behalf, sources said. A cargo industry source said Amazon expects to make a decision to go beyond the trial run and pull the trigger on a larger air cargo operation by the end of January.

“I believe they are serious about looking at this,” said the leasing executive, who asked not to be named because he may later do business with Amazon. “They are not going to hang about.”

One analyst even speculates Amazon could deliver for other companies, putting it in direct competition with UPS and FedEx, a move that would dramatically shake up the express package business.

Amazon declined comment on the development of an air cargo operation.

The online news site Motherboard reported last month on the Wilmington trial.

Right now, the ATSG trial at Wilmington is limited. CEO Joe Hete said in a November conference call that ATSG is using five 767s flown by the company’s subsidiaries Air Transport International and ABX Air for a customer he declined to name..

Airplane tracker shows the two carriers are flying about five times a day from Wilmington to Dallas, Tampa, Ontario, Calif., and Allentown, Pa. Amazon has warehouses near each of those airports. From Nov. 1 through Dec. 17, the two ATSG carries flew a total of 219 flights with 767s from Wilmington. In the same period in 2014, the carriers flew just seven 767 flights from Wilmington.

The additional jets Amazon is negotiating to lease also would likely operate out of Wilmington Air Park, a former cargo hub that had fallen into disuse. Airborne Express, the former Seattle-based cargo company, once operated from Wilmington. German carrier DHL later acquired the sales and ground network of Airborne.

DHL used the airport, which has two runways, as the hub for its U.S. operations. That business sputtered and DHL shuttered its Wilmington business in 2008, laying off 7,000 workers.

One of Amazon’s biggest challenges is finding the cargo planes necessary for the operation. Boeing’s 767s are the preferred plane for the job, but there are a finite number of them, and they are a hot commodity right now. According to ABX, main decks of its 767s can accommodate up to 19 pallets, each measuring 88 by 125 inches at the base.

Earlier this month, ATSG bought two former Qantas 767-300ERs for conversion. And Kalitta, which recently acquired two used 767-300ER passenger planes and is having them converted to cargo freighters, is negotiating to buy even more.

“Atlas is also adding 767-300ERs and chasing Amazon,” the leasing executive said.

Because Amazon doesn’t have an Air Operator’s Certificate, which it needs in order to fly airplanes commercially, it needs to turn to cargo jet lessors to launch the business.

Leasing newly built Boeing 767F jets runs to $600,000 to $650,000 a month, according to cargo industry experts. Used converted freighter jets, which Amazon will likely have to launch the cargo business, cost about $300,000 to $325,000 per month to lease.

“As an interim step, (Amazon) will probably have to sign up with somebody who already has 767s and can start the operation,” the leasing executive said. “Then they’ll have to move, probably from 2017 onwards, into acquiring airplanes themselves.”

Amazon is working to avoid the debacle of two years ago, when the crush of holiday shopping overwhelmed UPS, leading many Amazon customers to get Christmas gifts after the holiday had passed. Those delays led Amazon to refund shipping charges and offer customers a $20 gift card.

“This is more of a warning shot across the bow of the express industry,” said Ned Laird, former managing director of Seattle-based consultancy Air Cargo Management Group, who is now retired. “(Amazon is saying) ,‘We’re not getting what we need. We’ve told you what we need. We’ll go elsewhere for now.’”

Package delivery services are already showing signs of strain this holiday season. Tracking software developer ShipMatrix reported that the on-time rates for both FedEx and UPS this season is behind where it was a year ago.

“(Amazon is) growing so quickly, their partners can’t keep up,” Baird ‘s Sebastian said.

For its part, UPS disputes the ShipMetrix data and said the company’s on-time shipping performance topped 97 percent this week.

“The vast majority of customers are receiving their packages on time,” UPS spokesman Steve Gaut said.

For the past few years, Amazon has been working to exert greater control over its shipping.

In 2014, it debuted its first sortation center in Kent, where it sorts parcels sent from its own warehouses by Zip code, and sends them to individual U.S. post offices for delivery in that day’s mail.

A year ago, it launched Prime Now, offering members of its $99 a year Prime subscription service, delivery as fast as one hour, often handled by contract workers who ferry parcels from urban warehouses to customers’ homes.

Earlier this month, Amazon announced adding thousands of trucks to its fleet to handle the growing load of packages it’s shipping.

“We have a very good and longstanding commercial relationship with many carriers, but we know that there is supplemental capacity needed in the market — so we are supplementing our existing carriers with our own trailer equipment,” Mike Roth, Amazon’s vice president of North America operations, told the Chicago Tribune at the time.

Sebastian believes Amazon will eventually ship air-cargo packages for other companies as well, putting it in direct competition with UPS, FedEx and others. Conceptually, other retailers could store goods in Amazon’s warehouses, and then have Amazon manage the entire delivery operation. That would help Amazon keep the cargo planes loaded even after the holiday crush ends.

“They potentially will have air cargo vehicles with extra space,” Sebastian said. “So it makes sense to offer that space (to other companies) to fill it up.”

Sebastian believes Amazon could begin offering shipping for third parties “as soon as next year.”

A source said the air cargo operation is being run by Scott Ruffin, who joined Amazon two years ago. Among the team he’s assembled to get this operation off the ground is Kniffin Kelly, who joined Amazon in September after a long career with UPS.

Read more here:

Emmalea McNay: Teen finds her calling in the skies

An Oaks Christian School senior who is only weeks away from earning her pilot’s license is learning about aviation from the ground up at the Commemorative Air Force Museum in Camarillo.

Emmalea McNay, 17, a Newbury Park resident, works on airplanes, directs runway traffic and talks with World War II veterans in addition to taking flying lessons.

“There is something powerful about being up there . . . knowing that you’re so far above the world and that you practically have the world at your fingertips when you fly,” said Emmalea, who usually goes by Emma.

Despite a strong interest in flying, her school work remains paramount. She takes Advanced Placement and honors courses at school, where she has a 4.67 gradepoint average. Emma also studies karate at Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios in Thousand Oaks.

Emma, who has been learning karate since she was 6, earned her first-degree black belt at 13. By then she’d already started thinking about being a pilot after seeing the Blue Angels, the Navy’s flight demonstration squadron, perform at an air show when she was 10.

“I just love doing it. I think I found my calling when I took my first flight,” Emma said.

She flew her first solo in July and is preparing to complete her cross-country test, which involves flying to a series of airports.

“One of the many phases in training is that flight instructors help you prepare for a flight, going through charts and planning trips to multiple airports,” Emma said.

She has spent more than 1,100 hours with the Commemorative Air Force working on World War II aircraft and talking with some of the few remaining veterans of that era.

“I’m honored that they would trust a 17-year-old to take care of such old airplanes. I have great mentors there,” Emma said.

She enjoys listening to the stories the veterans have about the war.

“It’s one thing to learn from history books, but it’s another thing entirely to learn from the people who were actually there,” she said.

The daughter of Michael and Cristy McNay, Emma has a younger brother, Joey, 12. Her father is a retired Ventura County sheriff’s deputy who works as a court liaison for the Simi Valley Police Department, and her mother is the marketing and business partnership coordinator for the Oaks Christian School Learning Center in Westlake Village.

Emma, who won first place in a sparring contest last month at a martial arts competition in Irvine, credits karate with teaching her self-discipline.

“Karate has taught me discipline, how to be a hard worker and to always go for things,” said Emma, who earned her seconddegree black belt Dec. 12.

Karate Master Eric Perlman of Z-Ultimate Self Defense Studios calls Emma an exceptional student.

“She has a huge amount of focus and very specific goals for her life, and she’s been very consistent in the way she has approached her schooling and her martial arts training,” he said.

After high school, Emma plans to obtain a degree in aeronautical science while training to fly professionally.

She has been accepted to Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University in Prescott, Ariz., and is waiting to hear back from other institutions.

Leif Iversen, a flight instructor with Channel Islands Aviation, believes Emma has a promising future in aviation.

“Emma is a great pilot,” the instructor said. “She is an excellent student who comes prepared. She is smart, very motivated and able to handle a lot of workload.


Dick Padgett: WWII aviator still flying at 90

This is the observation plane that Dick Padgett flies every day at Wurtsboro Airport. It is a Cessna L19 Bird Dog, the same type of plane that was flown in Korean and Vietnam, according to Padgett. He said it carried smoke rockets under each wing that were dropped in advance of approaching jet fighter planes, which would follow up by dropping napalm. 

U.S. Air Force veteran William Richard Padgett was born to fly, and he has done just that for all of his life. A former Port Jervis resident, Dick Padgett lives near Wurtsboro Airport, where at age 90 he works and continues to fly every day.

As a child, Padgett flew model airplanes, and he was piloting with instructors at 13. He earned his own pilot’s license at 16, served in battle as a distinguished Army Air Corps commander during World War II, made aviation his career, and continues to fly daily in his retirement.

“I was one of five cadets who already had pilot licenses in my class of 200, so these five we were able to graduate from flying school in just four months, instead of 12,” Padgett recalled of his beginning months in the military. “When the rest of the class was graduating, I had already flown 15 or 16 combat missions with the 8th Air Force, 92nd Bomb Group out of England. These were mostly over France, at first – and all before the D-Day invasion.”

At the time, Padgett’s 8th Air Force Division had the highest loss rate in his branch of service. Each crew initially was required to do 25 missions. When his crew was on a temporary break after 24 missions, the requirements changed to 35.

Nicknamed the “Flying Fortresses,” the B17 planes piloted by Padgett and others during World War II were unheated and open to sub-zero outside air. Ten-man crews operated machine guns that were mounted along all areas inside the plane. Due to the hazards each mission encountered, it was estimated that each crew member had an approximate 25 percent chance of completing his missions.

“We lost two our crew. One was a bull-turret gunner hit by 22-mm cannon fire from a German fighter plane. Five or six missions later, we lost our bombardier when an anti-aircraft burst blew the plexiglass nose off where he sat, right next to me,” Padgett said.

Padgett said he has no regrets about his military service, but does feel bad about bombing civilians in Germany.

“The civilians didn’t start the war, but there was no way to avoid hitting them,” Padgett said.

Born in Heightstown, N.J., Padgett grew up near an airport where he worked each week in exchange for otherwise unaffordable half-hour flying lessons. He lived in Port Jervis for several years, and his son graduated from Port Jervis High School.

Padgett is proud to have served his country, and glad for his decision to join for three reasons.

“The first and main reason is I wanted to serve my country. Secondly, I did not want to be drafted and not have a chance to qualify for aviation, so I volunteered. I knew, too, that this would give me an opportunity to go to college when I returned,” he said.

At age 90, he flies an L19 single-engine Bird Dog plane (such as those used in Vietnam and Korean) daily at Wurtsboro Airport.

“Veterans Day is just another day to me,” said Padgett. “I think about our veterans and military men and women every day, not just on Veterans Day.”

Padgett said he feels bad for the guys who served in Vietnam and were treated so badly when they came back.

“I once told a guy to get out of my glider when he said negative things about our Vietnam vets. They served our country just like I did,” Padgett said. “I will not stand for anyone putting our vets down.”

Story and photos:

More than $3 million in grants awarded for Edinburg’s South Texas International Airport (KEBG)

AUSTIN– The South Texas International Airport at Edinburg was among the nine recipients of $3.33 million in grants from the Texas Department of Transportation, Senator Juan “Chuy” Hinojosa stated in a media release on Thursday.

The grants, available through the federal Airport and Airway Improvement Act and the state Aviation Facilities Development and Financial Assistance Act, fund the preservation and improvement of the Texas general aviation system, according to the release.

“It is a priority to ensure the safety and security of our families living along the border,” Hinojosa stated.

The funds are said to be for the engineering design and construction for a hangar to be used by the Department of Public Safety during emergency response situations.

“Adding a hangar to be used by DPS to stage emergency response equipment and aircraft will allow for a more rapid response to emergency situations,” Hinojosa stated.


Police: Man caught with 25 lbs. of marijuana at Charlotte-Douglas International Airport (KCLT)

CHARLOTTE, N.C. -- Charlotte-Mecklenburg Police and agents with Homeland Security Investigations arrested a California man Monday night at Charlotte-Douglas Airport and accused him of trafficking marijuana.

Officers say the man had checked his bag and a K-9 drug dog sniffed pot; they asked 21-year-old Aaron Hills if they could search, and according to court documents, he agreed.

Police say they found 25 pounds of high grade marijuana in the bag, which is said to worth an estimated $50,000 on the street.

"How could you possibly think you could smuggle anything like a drink let alone illegal substances," said Rob McGowan, a passenger.

Jail records show that Hills is from Oakland, California. Police won't say if Charlotte was his final destination or if he was here to allegedly deliver or to pick up.

"It's comforting to know that people who are trying to get away with something like that will be caught," said Ranju Ganesh, a passenger.

While police won't say where the pot came from, California is one of the states where medical marijuana is legal.

Story and photo:

Adrian Gibson: What Is Going On Inside Bahamasair?


A select  committee of the House of Assembly, along with an investigatory body of private citizens and government representatives, must be appointed to investigate the goings-on at Bahamasair.

To use the words of Bradley Roberts, current Progressive Liberal Party (PLP) chairman and then PLP MP for Grants Town, in a 2001 address to the House, such committees are needed to “look into all the matters relating to the operations at Bahamasair Holdings Limited with powers to send for persons and papers with leave to sit from place to place and with leave to sit during recess.”

This week, the Court of Appeal overturned a $3.5m damages award to Bahamasair, finding that the airline had failed to install an upgraded part that may have prevented a 2007 crash landing. Appeal Justice Jon Isaacs, in a written judgment supported by his two colleagues, found that former Chief Justice Sir Michael Barnett’s ruling against Canadian firm Messier-Dowty was “unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence”. Justice Isaacs said Messier-Dowty had informed Bahamasair about its new, upgraded “damper rind” and upper bearing, but the national flag carrier had continued to use an old part – one that had ceased to be manufactured since 1998.

Further, Justice Isaacs found it was fair for the Canadian company to “assume that the end user will not so abuse or misuse his product” such that it wears down more quickly than expected – a development that does not mean the product is defective.

Justice Isaacs criticized Bahamasair’s failure to produce the Maintenance Control Manual (MCM) that was used by Bahamasair’s employees to replace a cylinder on the crashed aircraft’s landing gear on May 19, 2006. He ruled that that document would have been “crucial in assisting a tribunal to determine whether or not the respondent (Bahamasair) was carrying out the requisite maintenance properly” and he went on to state that the “appellant (Messier-Dowty) was unduly hamstrung by the failure of the respondent to produce the MCM and, ultimately, an omission which may have proven fatal to their counterclaim.”

The case arose from the January 18, 2007, crash of a Dash-8 aircraft at Governor’s Harbour, Eleuthera. The Court of Appeal judgment asserted that Bahamasair misinterpreted the warning signs before the crash and stated that “it is likely that had (Bahamasair) conducted the extension test by jacking up the aircraft as recommended by the appellant’s manual as soon after five cycles as possible, the emerging problem would have been discovered and rectified”.

The ruling asserted that Bahamasair negligently decided “to continue using a ring it ought to have known was no longer being produced since 1998.” Since 1998! Unthinkable!

Following this ruling, one is left to wonder about the safety procedures at Bahamasair and, given the questions I asked last week about the new ATR planes and the expertise of the persons who will be flying them, we are left to question their general maintenance of the current aircraft in its fleet.

Is Bahamasair current relative to industry technology?

Where are the regulators?

Can the travelling public repose confidence in the management and directorship of Bahamasair to ensure that we are safe, that aircraft are properly serviced and staffed by qualified pilots and flight attendants?

Is Bahamasair so cash-strapped that it cannot buy parts or simply doesn’t care to install them?

Is the situation so bad that they can’t ensure the safety of people?

Bahamasair, which received a subvention of $14.8m from the government this year, is - yet again - claiming to have suffered loss. The colossal losses suffered by taxpayers as a result of the failed Bahamasair experiment, from its launch to present day, exceeds $500m. That is unbelievable, unacceptable! Bahamasair must now be allowed to sink or swim or simply be sold off.

Under the Free National Movement administration, former Acting Managing Director Arthur Bennett Jr announced during the 1996/1997 fiscal year that Bahamasair was on target to reduce its annual losses by 50 per cent in 1999. Mr Bennett also projected a profit. Of course, in 1999, it was announced that Bahamasair lost $17m!

At present, the national flag carrier is on the cusp of industrial action by the Airport, Airline and Allied Workers Union (AAAWU).

To be frank, the airline must be right sized and certain managers – including the Managing Director Henry Woods – must be fired or retired. How can an airline with six or seven aircraft sustain 600 or more employees, many of whom are political cronies hired by politicians after a victorious election cycle? In order for Bahamasair to progress, the political interference in the day-to-day management of Bahamasair must cease; Bahamasair must be privatized or its stock sold to employees and the wider public; it should be directed to fly only the most lucrative local routes and it must take on more routes along the eastern seaboard of the United States.

Over the years, Bahamasair has been plagued by corruption. The August 18, 1995, Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Bahamasair revealed the managerial ineptitude, corrupt practices, unprofessional and political interference that plagued Bahamasair for many years.

When one reads that report today, what is stunning is that Mr Woods – who was then fired from Bahamasair and found in questionable circumstances – is today the Managing Director of Bahamasair.

According to that report: “Mr Woods, a qualified Aircraft Engineer, worked with Bahamasair from June of 1973 to November of 1992, becoming Director of Operations in August 1987 and Executive Director of Maintenance and Engineering in 1990.

“Mr. Woods was involved in a matter which led to the impounding of a B-737 aircraft on its arrival at Nassau in 1987 from Miami. Mr Woods explained the circumstances whereby the flight had been delayed, causing him to remain at the airport until 5am in order to ensure that the aircraft would be serviced immediately. The General Manager had asked him “at the time ... to give me a hand to transport some items to the house. I agreed.” Mr Woods proceeded to give details of the incident involving the import of uncustomed goods by that aircraft, a matter which he claimed no knowledge beforehand and in which he stated that he was not guilty of any wrongdoing whatsoever, and had not been questioned by Customs. The outcome was a demotion to Chief Engineer and a salary cut of $1,000 per year,” the Commission wrote.

They went on to say: “Mr. Woods’ explanation of the three important aspects of this matter, all of which he advanced to support his claim of non-involvement, was as follows:

(1) His portfolio and the requirements of the airplane to be serviced immediately after arrival ordained that he be present when it arrived.

(2) Because of the long day he fell asleep around 5am and was awakened by some of his assistants when the aircraft arrived at 5am.

(3) Although he had his transport at the airport, he thought it a natural thing to drive the truck in question away from the airport as he had been asked to help out and he believed that all Customs formalities had been complied with.”

The Commissioners rejected “all three statements as being evidence to bear out the innocence” of Mr. Woods.

Mr. Woods was further “questioned about the use of Bahamasair maintenance personnel on one occasion for assisting with construction work on his own building he was erecting in Nassau” and “Mr Woods admitted that he had done this and that it was “an improper way of using Bahamasair’s personnel.”

Further questions arose about Mr. Woods’ involvement in the building of the Stores extension and it was found that Mr Woods was “inconclusive as to the original tender price, although certain that not less than three bids had been received and that the lowest one was for $91,000. The Stores ended up costing $197,000. The report stated that Mr Woods “denied that he had been involved in any way with funds for payment of work as construction progressed.” They stated that “this testimony had been given by the Accountant, Mrs Culmer, and he stated that he was in no position to substantiate or deny it”.

Hmmmm. The Commissioners stated that “the overall conclusion is one of items purchased for sums well above their true value, items overhauled at a cost roughly four times what a new replacement would have cost, and others purchased from one source when they were otherwise available, on the basis of a firm quotation, at a figure slightly less than one-third of what they were purchased for.”

What’s more, Mr. Woods slapped then Union leader Henry Dean.

The Commissioner’s concluded: “Mr. Woods’ slapping of Mr. Dean and other unchallenged instances of friction and strained relations between the two show his lack of restraint and an unfortunate management style. He was a Senior Manager in the company when he utilized company resources for his own personal endeavors on company time and at no cost to himself. The unethical stance manifested in these acts, which he admitted, is mitigated only in small degree by his admission several years later that he had done so and that such conduct was ‘improper’. Failure to set up controls and to have monitoring systems, a ready tolerance of slackness and inattention to discipline are all clearly shown in the procedures relating to the King Air and the gross abuse of Bahamasair’s revenue from inflight sales by flight attendants, all matters adduced in evidence by more than one witness.”

So, given the report of the Commission, how did Mr. Woods become Managing Director where he remains today?

Bahamasair cannot progress until and unless it adopts a real atmosphere of accountability and until it rids itself of the poor management, bloated staff and weak internal controls.

I will be looking into Bahamasair further in the New Year.

Article and comments:

Chicago Rockford International Airport (KRFD) authority to decide whether to approve $17 million loan from local banks


The Rockford airport authority will have its first chance to approve a multi-million dollar loan signed by five banks last week.

Representatives from the financial institutions already signed the paperwork, but are now waiting on airport officials to approve the loan.

Together, the banks are extending a $17 million line of credit to the Chicago Rockford International Airport. The money is intended to keep construction going for an airport maintenance and restoration facility, known as the AAR project.

The project is in danger to be halted due to a halt on promised funds by the state. The airport commissioners will meet at 5 p.m. on Thursday, where they are expected to discuss the loan.


Airbus Helicopter AS350B3e, Air Methods Corp., N390LG: Accident occurred July 03, 2015 in Frisco, Colorado

Aviation Accident Final Report - National Transportation Safety Board:

NTSB Identification: CEN15MA290 
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, July 03, 2015 in Frisco, CO
Probable Cause Approval Date: 05/09/2017
Aircraft: AIRBUS HELICOPTERS INC AS350B3E, registration: N390LG
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Serious.

NTSB investigators traveled in support of this investigation and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The NTSB's full report is available at The Aircraft Accident Report number is NTSB/AAR-17/01.

On July 3, 2015, about 1339 mountain daylight time, an Airbus Helicopters AS350 B3e helicopter, N390LG, registered to and operated by Air Methods Corporation, lifted off from the Summit Medical Center Heliport, Frisco, Colorado, and then crashed into a parking lot; the impact point was located 360 feet southwest of the ground-based helipad. The pilot was fatally injured, and the two flight nurses were seriously injured. The helicopter was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on a company flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
Airbus Helicopters' dual-hydraulic AS350 B3e helicopter's (1) preflight hydraulic check, which depleted hydraulic pressure in the tail rotor hydraulic circuit, and (2) lack of salient alerting to the pilot that hydraulic pressure was not restored before takeoff. Such alerting might have cued the pilot to his failure to reset the yaw servo hydraulic switch to its correct position during the preflight hydraulic check, which resulted in a lack of hydraulic boost to the pedal controls, high pedal forces, and a subsequent loss of control after takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to perform a hover check after liftoff, which would have alerted him to the pedal control anomaly at an altitude that could have allowed him to safely land the helicopter. Contributing to the severity of the injuries was the helicopter's fuel system, which was not crash resistant and facilitated a fuel-fed postcrash fire.
The National Transportation Safety Board traveled to the scene of this accident. 

Additional Participating Entities:
Federal Aviation Administration  AVP-100; Washington, District of Columbia 
Federal Aviation Administration / Flight Standards District Office; Denver, Colorado
Airbus; Grand Prairie, Texas
Turbomeca; Grand Prairie, Texas
Air Methods Corporation; Denver, Colorado 
OPEIU - Local 109; Denver, Colorado 

Aviation Accident Factual Report - National Transportation Safety Board: 

Docket And Docket Items - National Transportation Safety Board:

NTSB Identification: CEN15MA290
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, July 03, 2015 in Frisco, CO
Aircraft: AIRBUS HELICOPTERS INC AS350B3E, registration: N390LG
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Serious.

NTSB investigators traveled in support of this investigation and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The NTSB's full report is available at The Aircraft Accident Report number is NTSB/AAR-17/01.

On July 3, 2015, about 1339 mountain daylight time, an Airbus Helicopters AS350 B3e helicopter, N390LG, registered to and operated by Air Methods Corporation, lifted off from the Summit Medical Center Heliport, Frisco, Colorado, and then crashed into a parking lot; the impact point was located 360 feet southwest of the ground-based helipad. The pilot was fatally injured, and the two flight nurses were seriously injured. The helicopter was destroyed by impact forces and a postcrash fire. The flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on a company flight plan. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident.

KUSA – The manufacturer of the AS-350 Flight for Life helicopter that crashed in Frisco in July tells 9Wants to Know a decades-old design for a crashworthy fuel system never became standard on the helicopter because "the civilian/commercial helicopter industry in the US was not receptive to it."

The response, from Airbus, comes after a 9Wants to Know investigation found FAA approval for a crash-resistant fuel system for the AS-350 in 1992. At the time, Eurocopter was the manufacturer of the popular helicopter.

Because the design neither became standard nor an option on the helicopter, the AS-350 that crashed in Frisco never had a crashworthy fuel system. In fact, its fuel system relied mostly on standards in place when the FAA approved the model in 1977. Surveillance video of the crash exclusively obtained by 9NEWS shows fuel pouring out of the helicopter seconds after impact. All three passengers on the helicopter survived the initial crash. Less than 30 seconds after the impact, a massive fire surrounded the aircraft.

Pilot Pat Mahany died shortly after the crash. An autopsy report released this week indicates the fire was a secondary factor in his death. In addition, flight nurse Dave Repsher suffered burns on more than 90% of his body and remains hospitalized five months after the crash.

Due to ongoing litigation, Airbus has chosen not to comment on the crash itself, but Friday it released a statement in response to inquiries from 9NEWS about the 1992 crash-resistant fuel system design.

"The crash resistant fuel system developed in 1992 was for a military procurement and was designed to military specifications. At that time, the civil/commercial helicopter industry in the U.S. was not receptive to it, probably due to weight and other factors attributable to it being designed specifically to military specifications," read the Airbus statement.

"In recent years the development of improved, lighter weight and lower cost technologies have made crash resistant fuel systems more attractive to civil operators, and certain segments of the marketplace are now asking for this technology, particularly air medical transport operators in the U.S., whose increased demand seems to correlate with their increased use of single engine helicopters," the statement continued.

Airbus began installing crashworthy fuel systems on the AS-350 (or H125) earlier this year, and it expects a retrofit to be available for existing helicopters sometime next year.

Air Methods, the owner of the Flight for Life that crashed in Frisco, announced last month it intends to retrofit its existing fleet of AS-350s starting next year assuming the design receives FAA approval.

Story and video:

NTSB Identification: CEN13LA115
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, December 23, 2012 in Corcoran, MN
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/13/2014
Aircraft: ROBINSON HELICOPTER R22 BETA, registration: N27AT
Injuries: 1 Minor.

NTSB investigators may not have traveled in support of this investigation and used data provided by various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

Before landing, the pilot hovered the helicopter about 10 feet above the ground to see if tarps covering the north half of the concrete helipad would move, and he then decided to continue the landing. The helicopter approached from the north, which placed the tail rotor over the tarps. The area south of the helipad was free of obstructions. While the pilot was shutting down the helicopter after landing, the helicopter made an uncommanded counterclockwise rotation of about 40 degrees. The pilot applied corrective pedal input with no response. The helicopter then rotated about three full revolutions before the tail boom and main rotors struck a nearby parked trailer, and a fire ensued. Postaccident examination of the helicopter did not reveal any preimpact anomalies; however, the examination was limited due to extensive impact and postimpact fire damage. Examination of the accident site revealed several cuts in the tarp in the area where the tail boom was positioned during landing. Although the pilot reported that the tarp did not impact the tail rotor, the evidence suggests that the tarp was lifted into the tail rotor during the shutdown, which likely caused damage to the tail rotor blades and resulted in a loss of tail rotor authority and the subsequent uncommanded rotation. Further, because the area south of the pad was free of obstructions and the reported wind was variable at 2 knots, the pilot could have landed the helicopter facing north, which would have placed the tail rotor over the unobstructed ground south of the helipad. 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s improper decision to land the helicopter in a position that placed the tail rotor near tarps, which resulted in the tarps being lifted into the tail rotor, subsequent tail rotor damage, a loss of tail rotor authority, and an uncommanded tail rotor rotation.

On December 23, 2012, about 1030 central standard time, a Robinson R22 Beta helicopter, N27AT, sustained substantial damage when the tail and main rotor struck a parked trailer after landing at a private residence near Corcoran, Minnesota. The helicopter subsequently caught fire and burned. The private pilot received minor injuries. The helicopter sustained damage to the structure supporting the main rotor gearbox and tail boom, the main rotors, the main rotor gearbox and the cabin. The aircraft was registered to the pilot and another individual and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the flight, which was not operated on a flight plan. The flight originated from a private heliport near St. Michael, Minnesota about 1025.

The pilot reported that the landing was executed to a large concrete pad that had been poured on his son's property for a building to be erected. He said that there were tarps covering the north half of the pad and he saw boards and stones holding the tarps in position. There was a trailer parked on the west side of the pad. He elected to land on the southeast part of the pad and approached from the north. The pilot stated that during his landing approach, he stopped and hovered about 10 feet above the ground to make sure the tarps would not move due to the helicopter's downwash. He said that he proceeded to make a normal landing and as he was preparing to shut down, the helicopter rotated about 30 to 40 degrees counterclockwise. The pilot applied corrective pedal input with no response. The helicopter then rotated about three full revolutions before the tail boom and main rotors struck a trailer that was parked near the west end of the concrete pad. Subsequently, the main rotor gearbox separated and came to rest in the passenger seat. The fuel tanks ruptured and a fire erupted. The pilot was able to extricate himself from the burning helicopter and remove his clothing that was on fire. He suffered burns to his face and head and experienced soreness for several days following the accident.

Examination of the accident scene revealed several cuts in the tarps that were covering the north half of the concrete landing pad. The area where the cuts were found corresponded with the area where the tail rotor of the helicopter would have been positioned for the described landing. The area to the south of the pad was clear of obstructions. Examination of the helicopter and control systems was conducted and no preimpact anomalies were noted, however, the examination was limited due to the extensive damage from the impact and the postimpact fire.

The pilot reported the wind as variable at 2 knots.

During a telephone conversation with the pilot, he stated that he did not believe that the tarp could have struck the tail rotor. He mentioned that he did see 2 small rips in the tarp in the area where the tail rotor would have been, but he also mentioned that the tarps had many small rips throughout.

Flight Nurse Leslie Stewart

NTSB Identification: CEN15FA003
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Saturday, October 04, 2014 in Wichita Falls, TX
Probable Cause Approval Date: 07/23/2015
Aircraft: BELL HELICOPTER TEXTRON 206L 1, registration: N335AE
Injuries: 3 Fatal, 1 Serious.

NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

The pilot reported that he was making an approach to a hospital helipad into light wind at night when he chose to go around because he felt that the approach was too high and fast. The pilot lowered the helicopter’s nose, added power, and raised the collective, and the helicopter then entered a rapid, “violent” right spin. A review of the last 43 seconds of the helicopter’s flight track data revealed that, as the helicopter approached the helipad, it descended from 202 to 152 ft and decelerated from a ground speed of about 9 to 5 knots before it turned right. The pilot attempted to recover from the uncommanded spin by applying left antitorque pedal and cyclic, but he was unable to recover, and the helicopter then spun several times before impacting power lines/terrain. Postaccident examination of the helicopter and the engine revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have caused the helicopter’s uncommanded right spin. The helicopter was under its maximum allowable gross weight at the time of the accident, and the wind was less than 4 knots. 

Federal Aviation Administration guidance states that the loss of tail rotor effectiveness could result in an uncommanded rapid yaw, which, if not corrected, could result in the loss of aircraft control. The guidance further indicates that, at airspeeds below translational lift, the tail rotor is required to produce nearly 100 percent of the directional control and that, if the required amount of tail rotor thrust is not available, the aircraft will yaw right. Therefore, it is likely that that the pilot did not adequately account for the helicopter’s low airspeed when he applied power to go around, which resulted in a sudden, uncommanded right yaw due to a loss of tail rotor effectiveness. 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:

The pilot’s failure to maintain yaw control when he applied power to execute a go-around at a low airspeed in dark, night conditions, which resulted in a rapid, uncommanded right yaw due to a loss of tail rotor effectiveness.


On October 4, 2014, about 0155 central daylight time, N335AE, a Bell 206L1+ helicopter, was destroyed by post-impact fire after it impacted terrain while on approach to the United Regional Hospital helipad, in Wichita Falls, Texas. The commercial pilot was seriously injured and the flight nurse, paramedic, and patient died. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Air Evac EMS, Inc, O'Fallon, Missouri. A company visual flight rules flight plan was filed for the patient transfer flight that departed Jackson County Hospital, near Waurika, Oklahoma, about 0133. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the air medical flight conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135.

A witness, who was a photojournalist for NBC News 3 in Wichita Falls, TX, was driving southbound on the central freeway and was passing over Maurine Street when he first saw the helicopter. He said it appeared to be flying toward the "north" and its spotlight was turned on. As the witness continued to drive south toward downtown Wichita Falls, he realized the helicopter was hovering over 10th and Grace Streets and he thought it was odd that the helicopter had not landed yet and maybe he was waiting for someone to clear off the helipad. The witness said the helicopter was hovering at a height that was equal to the height of the top of the hospital, about 100-120 feet. The witness said that when he reached 9th Street, he saw the helicopter begin to spin to the right and move from its position over 10th and Grace Streets south toward the helipad. He said the helicopter entered the spin slowly and began to descend as soon as it started to spin. Initially, the witness thought the helicopter was going to land, but it continued to spin and descend. The helicopter then disappeared from his view behind a building. Shortly after it disappeared from his view, the witness saw sparks. He called 911 and drove the scene. Once he arrived on-scene the police and first responders were already there.

According to the pilot, he and his Duncan, Oklahoma, based medical crew had just returned from a flight to Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, when he received a call from company dispatch to pick-up a patient in Waurika and transport him to United Regional Hospital in Wichita Falls. The pilot accepted the flight, but told dispatch that they needed 15 minutes on the ground to prepare for the flight since they had just landed.

The pilot stated that he, along with the paramedic and flight nurse, re-boarded the helicopter, performed the necessary checklists, called dispatch and filed a flight plan. The flight to Waurika was uneventful. After landing, the pilot stayed in the helicopter for about 20 minutes with the engine running while the patient was prepped and loaded. The pilot and medical crew then departed for Wichita Falls. The weather was clear and the wind was three knots or less. The pilot said he used night-vision-goggles (NVGs) while en route, but flipped them up as he approached the hospital due to intense ground lighting. Upon arriving in Wichita Falls, the pilot said he performed a "high recon" of United Regional Hospital's helipad and called out his intentions to land. He performed the pre-landing checklists, and started the approach to the helipad from the northwest at an altitude of 700 feet above ground level (agl). Both of the hospital's lighted windsocks were "limp" but were positioned so they were pointing toward the northwest. The pilot, who said he had landed at this helipad on numerous occasions, said the approach was normal until he got closer to the helipad. He said he felt fast "about 12-15 knots" and a "little high," so he decided to abort the approach. At this point, with about ¼ to ½ -inch of left anti-torque pedal applied, he added power, "tipped the nose over to get airspeed," and "pulled collective." The pilot said that as soon as he brought the collective up, the helicopter entered a rapid right spin. He described the spin as "violent" and that it was the fastest he had ever "spun" in a helicopter. The pilot told the crew to hold on and that he was "going to try and fly out of it." The pilot said he tried hard to get control of the helicopter by applying cyclic and initially "some" left anti-torque pedal "but nothing happened." The pilot said he added more left anti-torque pedal, but not full left anti-torque pedal as the helicopter continued to spin and he was still unable to regain control. He also said the engine had plenty of power and was operating fine. The pilot recalled the helicopter spinning at least five times before impacting the ground inverted. He said smoke quickly filled the inside of the helicopter, so he unbuckled his seatbelt assembly, took off his helmet, punched out the windshield and exited the burning helicopter.

The pilot also said that he did not hear any unusual noises prior to the "tail coming out from underneath them" and he did not recall hearing any warning horns or seeing any warning/caution lights. When asked what he thought caused the helicopter to spin to the right so quickly, he replied, "I don't know."

The helicopter was equipped with a handheld Garmin GPS 396 and Sky Trac ISAT-100 flight-tracking software. The SkyTrac system recorded position every 5 seconds versus the GPS that recorded position every 60 seconds. Data was successfully downloaded from each unit. The data between the two units was fairly consistent and revealed that after the helicopter departed Waurika, it flew on a south-westerly heading until it crossed Highway 447 in Wichita Falls. It then flew on a westerly heading until it reached Highway 287, where it then turned on a north westerly heading. As it proceeded to the northwest, the helicopter flew past United Regional Hospital to the east before it made a left, 180 degree turn about 1 to 1.5 miles north of the hospital. The helicopter then proceeded directly to the helipad on a south-easterly heading. A review of the last 43 seconds of the recorded Sky Trac data revealed that as the helicopter approached the helipad, it descended from an altitude of 202 feet to 152 feet and decelerated from a ground-speed of about 9 knots to about 5 knots before it turned to the right. Over the next 10 seconds, the helicopter traveled back toward the northwest as it descended to an altitude of 54 feet and increased to a ground-speed of about 17 knots before the data ended at 0155:14. The location of the last recorded data point was consistent with where the helicopter impacted the ground. 

A portion of the accident flight and impact were captured on one of the hospital's surveillance cameras. A review of the surveillance tape revealed the helicopter approached the helipad from the north with the spotlight turned on (the pilot said that he used the spotlight during the approach). The helicopter then climbed and went out of frame before it reappeared in a descending right hand turn then hit the ground. The time of impact was recorded at 0154:56. About 6 seconds later, there was a large explosion.

Another Air Evac flight crew (pilot, paramedic, and a flight nurse) was based at United Regional Hospital, and were in their quarters near the helipad when the hospital-based pilot heard the helicopter. The crew was preparing to assist the inbound crew with the patient transfer. The hospital-based pilot stated that when he opened the door to their quarters, he heard the helicopter arriving from the north. As the helicopter got closer, he heard "a change in rotor noise" followed by the sound of a "snap then bang then silence." The hospital-based pilot yelled to his crew that the helicopter may have crashed. All three immediately responded to the accident site where they found the helicopter upside down, facing west, and on-fire. The hospital-based pilot said the flight nurse, who was seated in the rear right seat, was lying about 6-feet away from the helicopter. She was on fire and most of her Nomex flight suit had burned away. The hospital-based pilot also saw the paramedic, who was seated in the rear, left seat, crawling out of the wreckage and the pilot was crawling out of the front of the wreckage. Due to the intense fire, there was no way to assist the patient.

The hospital-based paramedic stated that he was asleep when he was alerted of the inbound flight. He heard the helicopter approaching "then nothing." The lights in their crew-quarters then flickered for about 10 seconds. The hospital-based pilot then came in and said the helicopter had crashed. The hospital-based paramedic said that when he got to the accident site, the flight nurse was lying on her back on the sidewalk. The paramedic was on fire and about 10 feet away from the helicopter in the street. A bystander was using his shirt to put out the flames on the paramedic. The hospital-based paramedic then ran over to the injured paramedic. He said the paramedic was alert and was aware that he was involved in an accident. The hospital-based paramedic said he picked the injured paramedic up, placed him on a gurney and took him to the emergency room. He did not talk to the flight nurse or pilot.

The hospital-based flight nurse stated he was in bed, but had not fallen asleep. He heard the hospital-based pilot say that a company helicopter was inbound and he could hear it approaching the helipad. The flight nurse said he was putting on his jumpsuit when he heard the helicopter "power-up" followed by silence then the sound of a "crash." He and the two others immediately responded to the accident site. When the hospital-based flight nurse arrived on scene, he saw the flight nurse and thought she was deceased until she started screaming for help. The pilot was crawling through the front windshield and his foot was stuck. There was a "winding noise" coming from the helicopter so he helped him get out and away from the burning helicopter. He asked the pilot if he was ok, and he responded, "I don't know." The hospital-based flight nurse then saw the hospital-based paramedic dragging the injured paramedic away from the helicopter. He immediately realized the injured paramedic was a good friend and his flight partner. The hospital based flight nurse immediately went over to him and found the injured paramedic was alert. The injured paramedic said they were on final approach to the helipad when the helicopter started to spin, but he wasn't sure why.

The hospital-based flight nurse later asked the pilot what happened, and the pilot said "he wasn't sure." When he told the pilot that the paramedic said that the helicopter had spun, the pilot responded, "yeah."

The patient died in the accident but the flight nurse and the paramedic survived and were treated for severe burns. However, they both succumbed to their injuries within a month after the accident.


The pilot held a commercial pilot certificate for rotorcraft-helicopter, and instrument rotorcraft-helicopter. The operator reported his total flight time as 1,810 hours. About 1,584 of those hours were in helicopters, of which, 214 hours were in the Bell 206 series helicopter. His last Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) second class medical was issued on May 13, 2014, without limitations or waivers. The pilot was also a chief warrant officer with the United States Army. He attended Army flight school and was trained in the CH47D Chinook helicopters.

According to time-on-duty records provided by the operator, the pilot came on duty October 2, 2014, at 1810. This was the start of his first shift after having the previous 6 days off. He had only made one flight prior to the accident flight.

The pilot was hired by the operator on June 9, 2014. At that time, he reported a total of 1,755.6 total hours, of which, 159.1 hours were in the Bell 206 model helicopter. A review of his training records revealed he started initial/new-hire training on June 10, 2014, and satisfactorily completed ground school and 10.9 hours of flight training. The training included normal and emergency procedures, including loss of tail rotor effectiveness. On June 22, 2014, the pilot passed a flight crew-member competency/proficiency check- Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 135/NVG check ride. 

The pilot also completed "Initial Orientation-Flight" training at his assigned base in Duncan, Oklahoma. The training involved 5 flight hours and included cross country flights to the local area hospitals and landmarks; 2 hours of night flying for the same purpose; day and night approaches to hospital and elevated helipads; familiarization with all hazards, terrain and man-made, identified on the Duncan, Oklahoma base hazard map. This training was completed on July 8, 2014.


Weather at Sheppard Air Force Base/Wichita Falls Municipal Airport (SPS), about 5 miles north of the accident site, at 0152, was wind from 140 degrees at 3 knots, visibility 10 miles, clear skies, temperature 51 degrees F, dewpoint 33 degrees F, and a barometric pressure setting of 30.24 in HG.


The United Regional Hospital's ground-level helipad was located directly across the street from the hospital's emergency room entrance. The final approach/take-off area (FATO) was 60-foot-wide by 60-foot-long and was privately owned and operated by United Regional Health Care System. At the time of the accident, the hospital based flight crew's helicopter was in the hangar and the helipad was clear of obstacles.


The single-engine, seven-place helicopter was manufactured in 1981 and equipped with a Rolls-Royce C-250-30P turbo shaft engine. It was configured for air medical transport; one pilot, two medical crew, and one patient. The operator reported that at the time of the accident, the airframe had about 18,378.6 hours total time and the engine had about 3,546.2 hours total time.

The helicopter was retrofitted with Van Horn Aviation (VHA) after-market composite tail rotor blades (Supplemental Type Certificate No. SR02249LA). According to VHA's website, this install helps reduce overall aircraft noise and produce more tail rotor authority. 

The estimated gross weight of the helicopter at the time of the accident was 4,274 pounds, or about 176 pounds below the maximum gross weight of 4,450 pounds.


An on-scene examination of the helicopter was conducted on October 4-5, 2014, under the supervision of the National Transportation Safety Board Investigator-in-Charge (NTSB IIC). The helicopter collided with power lines and came to rest inverted between two trees that lined a public sidewalk about one block northwest of the helipad. All major components of the helicopter were located at the main impact site. Small sections of the helicopter were found strewn within 100 feet of where the main wreckage came to rest.

The helicopter was recovered and taken to a salvage facility where a layout examination was conducted on October 6, 2014. The above mentioned party members were in attendance for both the on-scene and salvage yard exams.

The helicopter wreckage was extensively burned and fragmented into large and small sections. These sections were laid out in a manner that was consistent with how they would have been situated prior to the accident. The tail rotor and portion of the empennage sustained the least amount of impact and fire damage.

The tailboom had separated from the main body of the helicopter just aft of where it attached to the fuselage.

Both tail rotor blades exhibited minor leading edge damage and there was some de-bonding on the trailing edge. The pitch control tube to the gearbox to the 90-degree bend and forward to where the tail boom had separated from the fuselage was intact. The tail rotor gearbox magnetic plug was clean and there was no fluid observed the tail rotor gearbox sight-glass.

The right horizontal fin remained attached to the tailboom and exhibited some thermal damage. The left horizontal fin was folded under and burned.

The tail rotor driveshaft was relatively intact, but damage was noted to the Thomas couplings, which were splayed, and the hangar bearing between #1 and #2 was out of alignment.

The aft short-shaft was separated and exhibited thermal damage. The forward end of the short shaft was burned. The shaft did not rotate due to thermal damage. The oil cooler blower housing had mostly melted away.

The front end of the oil cooler blower shaft and spines were intact. The forward short-shaft was attached to the aft end of the freewheeling unit located in the engine accessory gear box. But the aft end that attached to the forward end of the oil cooler blower shaft was separated. The splines were intact.

The freewheeling (FW) unit rotated, but did not turn due to thermal damage.

The flex frames on both ends of the main drive shaft were fractured. There was no twist in the shaft. The engine to transmission adapter on the aft of the transmission was rotated and continuity was established to the main rotor system.

Control tubes were fractured and thermally damaged, but continuity was established for the throttle control and collective to the broom closet. Continuity for the cyclic was also established, but the cyclic control had fractured and was found in the wreckage.

The left anti-torque pedals (co-pilot side) dual control pedal assembly was installed, but the linkage had been disconnected and the pedals were locked by the operator to prevent someone from inadvertently depressing the pedals. 

Continuity was established for the right anti-torque pedals. An impact mark was observed on a section of the anti-torque pedal assembly where it ran through a lightning hole in the lower fuselage. A measurement from the center of the bolt that secures this tube to the location of the impact mark was taken. Then, the measurement was used to determine the position of the pedal at the time of impact by lining the mark up with an exemplar helicopter. The measurement revealed the right pedal was displaced about 50-75% at the time of impact.

The rotating and non-rotating sections of the swash plate were fractured and burned, and the control links were fractured and thermally damaged. Extensive thermal damage was noted to the transmission.

Both of the main rotor blades exhibited impact and fire damage. Blade #1 had fractured outside of the doublers. About 6 feet of the outboard blade exhibited impact damage and about 24-inches of the blade tip had separated and was not burned. A section of the blade tip exhibited impact and striations marks consistent with it striking a cable.

Blade #2 was also fractured at the doublers. The after-body was missing due to fire. The tip of the blade was partially attached with a small unburned section being completely separated.

Though the helicopter sustained extensive thermal damage, continuity for all the main flight control systems was established and no pre-mishap mechanical anomalies were observed that would have precluded normal operation prior to the accident.

It was also observed that the two main fuel lines that transfer fuel from the forward fuel tanks to the main tanks were separated at their rear fittings just aft of the broom closet. According to the FAA and Bell, there are no break-away fittings or mechanism (sensor) that would have sensed a separation and stopped fuel flow after the accident if power was applied. If the engine continued to run after the accident, raw fuel would have continued to be pumped into the aft cabin area from the forward tanks. Fuel may have also drained from vent lines due to the helicopter being inverted.

The engine sustained extensive thermal damage. The engine was separated into sections and no pre-mishap anomalies were noted that would have precluded normal operation prior to the accident.

The annunciator panel was examined by the NTSB Materials Laboratory for the presence of any stretched light bulb filaments. Each annunciator light was x-rayed to determine the status of the two bulbs inside. While there was some evidence of age-related sagging, no stretched filaments were found in any of the annunciator lights.


A toxicological examination was conducted on "first-draw" blood specimens taken from the pilot when he was admitted to United Regional hospital's emergency room after the accident. These specimens were subpoenaed by the NTSB and shipped to the FAA's Accident Investigation Laboratory, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma. The results of the testing were negative for all items tested.


The FAA issued Advisory Circular (AC) 90-95, Unanticipated Right Yaw in Helicopters, in February 1995. The AC stated that the loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE) was a critical, low-speed aerodynamic flight characteristic which could result in an uncommanded rapid yaw rate which does not subside of its own accord and, if not corrected, could result in the loss of aircraft control. It also stated, "LTE is not related to a maintenance malfunction and may occur in varying degrees in all single main rotor helicopters at airspeeds less than 30 knots."

Paragraph 8 of the AC stated:

"OTHER FACTORS...Low Indicated Airspeed. At airspeeds below translational lift, the tail rotor is required to produce nearly 100 percent of the directional control. If the required amount of tail rotor thrust is not available for any reason, the aircraft will yaw to the right."

According to the FAA Rotorcraft Flying handbook (FAA-H-8083-21A), "Loss of tail rotor effectiveness (LTE) or an unanticipated yaw is defined as an uncommanded, rapid yaw towards the advancing blade which does not subside of its own accord. It can result in the loss of the aircraft if left unchecked. It is very important for pilots to understand that LTE is caused by an aerodynamic interaction between the main rotor and tail rotor and not caused from a mechanical failure. Some helicopter types are more likely to encounter LTE due to the normal certification thrust produced by having a tail rotor that, although meeting certification standards, is not always able to produce the additional thrust demanded by the pilot."

"LTE is an aerodynamic condition and is the result of a control margin deficiency in the tail rotor. It can affect all single rotor helicopters that utilize a tail rotor of some design. The design of main and tail rotor blades and the tail boom assembly can affect the characteristics and susceptibility of LTE but will not nullify the phenomenon entirely." 

This alteration of tail rotor thrust can be affected by numerous external factors. The main factors contributing to LTE are:

1. Airflow and downdraft generated by the main rotor blades interfering with the airflow entering the tail rotor assembly.

2. Main blade vortices developed at the main blade tips entering the tail rotor.

3. Turbulence and other natural phenomena affecting the airflow surrounding the tail rotor.

4. A high power setting, hence large main rotor pitch angle, induces considerable main rotor blade downwash and hence more turbulence than when the

helicopter is in a low power condition.

5. A slow forward airspeed, typically at speeds where translational lift and translational thrust are in the process of change and airflow around the tail rotor will vary in direction and speed."

"If a sudden unanticipated right yaw occurs, the following recovery technique should be performed. Apply forward cyclic control to increase speed. If altitude permits, reduce power. As recovery is affected, adjust controls for normal forward flight. A recovery path must always be planned, especially when terminating to an OGE hover and executed immediately if an uncommanded yaw is evident. Collective pitch reduction aids in arresting the yaw rate but may cause an excessive rate of descent. Any large, rapid increase in collective to prevent ground or obstacle contact may further increase the yaw rate and decrease rotor rpm. The decision to reduce collective must be based on the pilot's assessment of the altitude available for recovery. If the rotation cannot be stopped and ground contact is imminent, an autorotation may be the best course of action. Maintain full left pedal until the rotation stops, then adjust to maintain heading."

DEC. 8, 1950 - JULY 3, 2015

KUSA – Air Methods, the Colorado-based owner of the Flight for Life helicopter that crashed in Frisco in July, acknowledges the fiery crash has sped up the company's desire to retrofit the fuel systems on its entire fleet of AS-350 helicopters. 

The statement, announced on the company's YouTube page, follows a five-month 9Wants to Know investigation into antiquated helicopter fuel systems. Our investigation has found, among other things, most of the helicopters registered in Colorado are not equipped with fuel systems that would survive a relatively low-impact crash.

In addition, 9Wants to Know has found evidence the former manufacturer of the AS-350, Eurocopter, had FAA approval for a crashworthy fuel system aboard the popular helicopter in 1992. The design, outlined in a 1992 FAA Supplemental Type Certificate, was never incorporated into the fleet and subsequently languished for decades as numerous AS-350s continued to erupt into flames following survivable crashes.

PREVIOUS STORY:Helicopter design 'loophole' may contribute to fiery deaths

In July, an Airbus AS-350 B3e Flight for Life helicopter crashed in Frisco thirty seconds after takeoff and quickly ignited. Surveillance video obtained by 9Wants to Know shows fuel pouring out of the aircraft six seconds after impact. Pilot Pat Mahany died, and flight nurse Dave Repsher suffered burns on more than 90% of his body. Fellow flight nurse Matt Bowe survived the crash.

Air Methods President of Domestic Air Medical Services Mike Allen stated in the YouTube video the crash has had a large impact on company. "There is no doubt the Frisco accident has accelerated the retrofit discussion."

According to a statement provided to 9NEWS, Air Methods plans on retrofitting more than 100 AS-350s starting next year assuming the retrofit design receives FAA approval.

It's a move endorsed by Flight for Life Colorado.

"Flight for Life Colorado fully supports the research and development of new crashworthy fuel systems for our helicopters," explained Program Director Kathy Mayer in the same video.

To see the video go to:

On Saturday at 4 P.M. , 9NEWS will air a 9Wants to Know Special Report "Fueling the Fire" that outlines the problem.

Story and video:

NTSB Identification: CEN15FA290
Nonscheduled 14 CFR Part 135: Air Taxi & Commuter
Accident occurred Friday, July 03, 2015 in Frisco, CO
Aircraft: AIRBUS HELICOPTERS INC AS350B3E, registration: N390LG
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 2 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed. NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.

On July 3, 2015, at 1339 mountain daylight time, an Airbus Helicopter Inc. (formerly American Eurocopter) AS350B3e helicopter, N390LG, impacted the upper west parking lot 360 feet southwest of the Summit Medical Center helipad (91CO), Frisco, Colorado. A post-impact fire ensued. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The helicopter was registered to and operated by Air Methods Corp and the flight was conducted under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 135 on a company flight plan. The airline transport pilot was fatally injured and two flight nurses were seriously injured. The public relations flight was en route to Gypsum, Colorado.

According to Air Methods the helicopter was flying to the American Spirit of Adventure Boy Scout Camp near Gypsum, Colorado, for a public relations mission. Multiple witnesses observed the helicopter lift off from the ground-based helipad, rotate counterclockwise, and climb simultaneously. One witness estimated that the helicopter reached an altitude of 100 feet before it started to descend. The helicopter continued to spin counterclockwise several times before it impacted a parking lot and an RV to the southwest of the Flight for Life hangar and helipad. The helicopter came to rest on its right side, was damaged by impact forces, and was charred, melted, and partially consumed by fire.