Replies

Interesting data, but that is not the only data-points, like perhaps electrical issues.

And it is way too early to issue a statement that says no mechanical issues, though the preliminary statement says something like that, they did not actually say that, and the report states one engine indicated power upon impact, and the other engine, “visually examined” indicates nothing. This is information without a conclusion.

We don’t really know until a thorough forensic analysis of all the pieces/parts of the platform, and that includes engine issues as well are examined in minute detail.

Walking a mishap scene, I’ve observed engines after a mishap, looking all spiffy and undamaged, however, internal examinations revealed much more than the eye could see, so perhaps there WAS an engine problem but thus far they say “initial” indications see no engine issues. The NTSB does not assign cause (backed by facts) until they have a complete picture. Later they will.

“As such, no conclusions about how the incident happened should be drawn from the information contained within the investigative update.

“According to FAA records, the pilot held an FAA commercial certificate with ratings for helicopter and instrument helicopter, as well as an FAA instructor certificate for flight, instrument, and ground instruction.” https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/Documents/DCA20MA059-Investigative-Update.pdf

Highly experienced pilot, for sure.

As a closing comment, while preliminary reports can be interesting, holding judgment until the final report is good practice. Hard to do, for sure, but necessary until all aspects of the flight, pilot and platform are examined in detail.

And yes, we can’t ignore the historical average of pilot error accounts for 80% of mishaps. . .pilot are human.