Eurocopter AS 350 B2 accident near New York, New York, January 18, 2010
On January 18, 2010 at about 10:33 pm local time, a Eurocopter AS 350 B2 (helicopter), registered N696BH, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near New York, New York (West 30Th Street Heliport airport). It was a positioning flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The failure of maintenance personnel to properly secure one tail rotor pitch change link to its respective tail rotor blade resulting in an in-flight separation of the link from the blade. Contributing to the accident was the lack of an adequate post-maintenance inspection procedure.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- January 18, 2010 · about 10:33 pm local time
- Place
- New York, New York · West 30Th Street Heliport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Eurocopter AS 350 B2 · all AS 350 B2s on the register
- Registration
- N696BH · no longer on the register · serial 3793
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Positioning flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
Shortly after takeoff, the pilot of the helicopter reported feeling a vibration through the airframe including the anti-torque pedals and cyclic. With positive control of the helicopter, he safely landed at a nearby heliport. After touchdown, while shutting down and applying the rotor brake, he noted that the vibration increased dramatically as the rotor speed decreased to a stop. Upon a cursory inspection of the helicopter after shutdown, the pilot noticed that one pitch change link of one tail rotor blade was separated from its respective attach point at the blade, and the blade was out of its normally installed position. Further inspection revealed a hole in the right side of the tailboom and the tailcone was damaged consistent with the tail rotor blade contacting the tailboom. The securing hardware (consisting of the bolt, castellated nut, and cotter pin) of the separated pitch change link were not found. The opposite tail rotor blade pitch change link was found properly connected at both ends, with both ends secured by cotter pins. Inspection of the tail rotor assembly by the Safety Board’s Materials Laboratory revealed no evidence indicating that the missing bolt had fractured or was properly installed and secured with a cotter pin. Several days before the accident a mechanic had inspected the tail rotor pitch change links of the helicopter for end play and he was advised by the company's Director of Maintenance that the bearing of the tail rotor pitch change spider assembly needed to be replaced. The mechanic stopped his inspection and the work to the tail rotor pitch change spider assembly was completed the next morning at which point the tail rotor assembly was installed. There was no record of a post-maintenance inspection of the replaced pitch change link assembly at the tail rotor blade attach point. Additionally, the operator at the time did not have a Required Inspection Items (RII) program on their Federal Aviation Administration Approved Aircraft Inspection Program, and if they had, it is likely that a RII inspection by a trained mechanic would have detected the missing cotter pin upon completion of the replacement maintenance performed on the pitch change link assembly. Following the accident, the operator implemented a Lockout/Tagout procedure to ensure its aircraft are not returned to service before the RII program is completed.
The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.
The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Sys/Comp malf/fail (non-power) during enroute (cruise) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft propeller/rotor › Tail rotor › Tail rotor blade › Incorrect service/maintenance
- factor Organizational issues › Management › Policy/procedure › Adequacy of policy/proc › Operator
Pilot
- Certificate: commercial pilot
- Ratings: instrument: helicopter; rotorcraft: helicopter
- Flight time: 2,012 hours in all; 314 in this make and model; 151 in the last 90 days; 47 in the last 30 days; 1,957 as pilot in command; 848 on instruments
- Last flight review: September 21, 2009
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 5,957 hours
- Last inspection: approved inspection programme, January 16, 2010
- Maximum gross weight: 4,961 lb
- Seats: 6
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Turbomeca ARRIEL 1D1 (turboshaft); 0 hours total
- Operator: Liberty Helicopters, Inc.
The flight
- Departed from: JRB New York NY at 10:29 pm
- Destination: JRA New York NY
Weather at the time
- Light: dusk
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: scat at 3,800 ft
- Temperature: 46°F (8°C), dew point 34°F (1°C)
- Altimeter: 29.87 inHg
- Observation at 10:51 pm from NYC
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.
