The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA12LA493 · Final report

Sikorsky S-58JT accident near Middletown, Delaware, August 1, 2012

On August 1, 2012 at about 1:00 pm local time, a 1959 Sikorsky S-58JT (helicopter), registered N126GW, was substantially damaged in an accident during maneuvering (hover) near Middletown, Delaware (Parking Lot airport). It was an external-load flight under external-load helicopter rules (Part 133). 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 pilot's failure to recognize that the helicopter was experiencing tail rotor dynamic instability and to take immediate corrective actions during an external load lift, which resulted in the failure of a tail rotor blade.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 12, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
August 1, 2012 · about 1:00 pm local time · cases in 2012
Place
Middletown, Delaware · Parking Lot · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Sikorsky S-58JT, built 1959 · all S-58JTs on the register
Registration
N126GW · registry record · serial 581124
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
External-load flight · external-load helicopter rules (Part 133)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot had flown two uneventful external load lifts to place 2,900-lb air conditioning units on a warehouse roof. The pilot reported that, during the third lift, he felt vibration in the pedals that became violent, and the helicopter then began to rotate about its vertical axis. The air conditioning unit touched down on the roof as the helicopter was spinning. The pilot could not stop the helicopter's rotation, so he released the cable attached to the air conditioning unit and then maneuvered the helicopter away from the warehouse. He then increased forward speed, turned right to line up with a street, and conducted a roll-on landing. Examination of the helicopter revealed that the entire aft portion of one of the four tail rotor blades had separated just aft of the blade's spar where a bond line existed. Examination of the tail rotor blade revealed high-stress progressive crack growth features at the root end of the fracture, buckling deformation adjacent to the fracture, and bending deformation of the leading edge, all of which were consistent with the tail rotor blade fracturing due to dynamic instability in the tail rotor. The progressive crack growth features observed on the fracture surface were associated with relatively high stress and few cycles and likely occurred after the deformation associated with the buckling. In addition, all four tail rotor blades exhibited bending deformation, indicating that they all experienced loads that exceeded the allowable design loads, and the deformation pattern was consistent with an external input on the tail rotor assembly overloading all of the blades rather than a failure in the blade causing it to become unstable. The helicopter manufacturer confirmed that such damage can be caused by dynamic tail rotor instability and that such instability can be accompanied by tail rotor vibration, as was experienced during the accident flight. Although dynamic tail rotor instability rarely occurs, it has been known to occur on the accident helicopter make and model. To improve tail rotor stability, the helicopter manufacturer had introduced two modifications to the tail rotor system, and both of these modifications had been installed on the accident helicopter. Even with the modifications, dynamic tail instability can occur, and high values of left pedal, improper tail rotor cable tension (too high or too low), bottoming of the tail rotor control system spring, higher rotor speed, or relative wind from the right forward quadrant could increase susceptibility. However, a review of the helicopter's maintenance records did not reveal that any of the mechanical factors that could contribute to tail rotor instability existed, and wind was calm at the time of the accident. Additionally, after the damaged components were replaced, the helicopter was returned to service. The helicopter's flight manual also contained guidance stressing that pilots should immediately decrease the tail rotor pitch after encountering pedal vibration. If the pilot had recognized that the pedal vibration was indicative of tail rotor instability and immediately taken the proper corrective actions in accordance with this guidance, the accident might have been prevented.

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

  1. Miscellaneous/other during maneuvering (hover) defining event
  2. Sys/Comp malf/fail (non-power) during maneuvering (hover)
  3. Part(s) separation from AC during maneuvering (hover)
  4. Autorotation Off-field or emergency landing

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action performance › Pilot
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft propeller/rotor › Tail rotor › Tail rotor blade › Capability exceeded
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft propeller/rotor › Tail rotor › Tail rotor blade › Failure

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: instrument: helicopter; rotorcraft: helicopter
  • Flight time: 16,500 hours in all; 7,000 in this make and model; 125 in the last 90 days; 50 in the last 30 days; 16,500 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: April 24, 2012
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 11,064.7 hours
  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, July 31, 2012
  • Maximum gross weight: 12,500 lb
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine 1: Pwc PT6T-6 (turboshaft); 3,282 hours total
  • Engine 2: Pwc PT6T-6 (turboshaft); 3,876 hours total
  • Operator: Aircrane INC

The flight

  • Departed from: None Middletown DE at 12:30 pm
  • Destination: None Middletown DE
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Visibility: 8 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 73°F (23°C), dew point 72°F (22°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.89 inHg
  • Observation at 12:51 pm from ILG, 10 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

12 documents, released by the NTSB on June 25, 2015. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

Connections how this case links to the rest of the register

Aircraft
Place

The whole map of how records connect · these connections as data: /graph/accident/ERA12LA493.json.

The bigger picture in Aviation Analytics: accidents over time since 1982, by model, by phase of flight and conditions, by place and on the map.

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 does not name anyone involved, its policy at this time. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.