NAME WITHHELD BY REQUEST

Author’s note: This personal account of a Class C mishap examines the sequence of events and contributing factors while conducting Task 2125, Perform Pinnacle-Ridgeline Operations. The incident highlights the critical importance of effective crew coordination, adherence to task standards, aviation discipline and aircraft control during each flight.

Pre-Mishap Phase

I was serving as the instructor pilot (IP) conducting a Readiness Level 2 training flight for a pilot (PI) undergoing progression in the UH-72A Lakota. The PI had transitioned from the CH-47F and previously served as a pilot in command in the UH-72A. Our crew consisted of an IP, the PI, a standardization instructor (SI) and a crew chief (CE). The primary training focus was to perform Task 2125, Perform Pinnacle-Ridgeline Operations. The PI conducted multiple iterations of this task the previous day with another IP and no CEs, all performed to standard as documented in the PI’s training record.

Mishap Phase

The mishap occurred at a local training site 25 nautical miles northwest of the unit’s aviation flight facility. At the training site, the crew conducted a high reconnaissance of the area and selected a berm in the northwest corner as the landing site. All aircrew members reported visual contact of the landing area. The PI initiated a slow, controlled approach to the berm. Once the aircraft was below 50 knots, the SI and CE opened the cabin doors to gain better visibility of the landing area.

During the descent, the crew conducted no briefing to indicate wind speed and direction, surface conditions, obstacles, approach or departure paths, abort conditions or the touchdown point of landing. As the aircraft hovered over the pinnacle, the CE called the aircraft down, stating that the skids contacted the surface. However, the CE did not specify which portion of the skids were contacting the pinnacle.

The PI focused outside and continued to lower the collective. I monitored the primary flight display inside the cockpit, tracking the aircraft instruments — particularly the mast moment indicator — while shadowing the flight controls. As the PI continued to lower the collective, the aircraft began to slide rearward downslope of the pinnacle. The PI attempted to correct this movement with forward cyclic, approaching the caution range of greater than 50%. I stated, "Mast moment," while the CE stated, “Sliding back.”

The mast moment continued through the maximum range of greater than 90% as the aircraft continued to slide rearward. As the mast moment exceeded the maximum limit, an audible grinding noise was heard, at which point the SI stated, “Climb, climb, climb!” The PI instantaneously applied collective, bringing the aircraft off the pinnacle. I then instructed the PI to maneuver the aircraft forward and down to level ground to initiate the shutdown procedure. The entire sequence occurred within 2.4 seconds.

Post Mishap Phase

We immediately contacted flight operations prior to the shutdown sequence, and they initiated the pre-mishap plan accordingly. Upon inspection of the aircraft, the crew identified damage to three of the main rotor blades and the Wire Strike Protection System, resulting in a Class C mishap.

Lessons Learned

This mishap was preventable and resulted directly from a breakdown in crew coordination, lack of communication, improper aircraft control and inadequate adherence to task standards. Overconfidence in the PI’s ability — driven by his satisfactory performance the day prior and his significant flight hours in the aircraft — led to complacency. I failed to provide an environment of effective crew coordination and communication, and I failed to conduct on-the-spot corrections in accordance with the UH-72A Aircrew Training Manual (ATM) for Task 2125.

To prevent similar mishaps, crews must adhere to these critical guidelines:

• Conduct a comprehensive brief: Prior to executing pinnacle operations, crews must identify and brief wind direction and speed, surface conditions, obstacles, touchdown location, approach and departure paths, and clearly defined abort or go-around criteria.
• Establish clear and directive communication: Communication must be clear, concise and direct to ensure all aircrew members share an identical understanding of intentions. When calling ground contact, CEs must specify which part of the aircraft is touching the surface.
• Prioritize aircraft control: Aircrews must prioritize proper aircraft control techniques and make timely, corrective decisions without delay.
• Enforce ATM standards: Instructors must maintain disciplined training standards and correct deviations immediately to prevent crew complacency and confusion.

Aviation demands high discipline, constant vigilance and unwavering adherence to established standards. As an IP, it is my responsibility to identify and correct these crew breakdowns early to ensure safe, standardized operations — a lesson I now apply directly to how I plan, brief and execute every flight.