New York helicopter broke apart in midair before deadly crash, report shows
The report by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the government's first public explanation about what might have happened on 10 April, when the Bell 206L-4 plunged into the river.
'Several witnesses described hearing several loud 'bangs' emanating from the helicopter before it broke up and descended into the river,' the report said.
The helicopter had flown from the Statue of Liberty, up to the George Washington Bridge and then made a 180-degree turn to head back downtown, the report said.
'Surveillance video (with accompanying audio) captured the helicopter traveling south before it suddenly separated into three major sections: fuselage (including the engine), main rotor system (including both main rotor blades, transmission and roof-beam structure), and the tail boom (including the tail rotor),' it continued.
Justin Green, an aviation lawyer and former Marine helicopter pilot, told the Associated Press that a sequence of blurry images released by the NTSB show the helicopter yawing severely and the tail boom failing, suggesting it was probably struck by the aircraft's main rotor blades during flight.
'It's clear that some mechanical issue precipitated the breakup,' Green said.
But the report does not look at the initial cause of the helicopter's break-up. The cause, Green said, will likely be determined by a forensic examination of the wreckage recovered from the river.
'A tail strike could be caused by a pilot not handling a loss of power emergency and allowing the rotor rpm to decay, which makes the rotors flap up and down more and that can cause a strike,' he said.
The helicopter, a Bell 206L-4 built in 2004, had operated about 50 hours since its last inspection on 27 February, according to the NTSB report. The helicopter's airframe accrued nearly 13,000 total hours of operation, and the engine accrued more than 23,000 hours.
Maintenance records from the federal aviation administration (FAA) show the aircraft had an issue involving its transmission assembly last September.
The helicopter, operated by tour company New York Helicopter, was not equipped with any video or data recording devices, but the preliminary report said that photos taken before the group departed showed that pilot Seankese Johnson, a 36-year-old former Navy SEAL, was wearing computer-augmented sunglasses, which would have had video and audio recording capability. The glasses have not been recovered.
Johnson received his commercial pilot's license in 2023 and had logged 790 hours of flight time, the NTSB report said.
Retired NTSB investigator Al Yurman told the AP that Johnson did not appear to be particularly experienced flying a Bell 206L-4. The agency said in its report Johnson had fewer than 50 hours of flight in that type of aircraft.
'It's quite sophisticated for that type of work,' Yurman said. 'I would prefer to have someone more experienced, but we'll know more when the full report comes out.'
The tour operator, New York Helicopter, has been through bankruptcy and faced ongoing lawsuits in recent years. The company has said it is cooperating with authorities in the investigation.
Agustín Escobar, 49; Mercè Camprubí Montal, 39; and their children Victor, 4, Mercedes, 8, and Agustin, 10, members of a prominent Barcelona family, were killed in the crash. Officials have said Escobar, global CEO of rail infrastructure at Siemens Mobility, was in the New York area on business and his family had joined him for a birthday celebration.
The incident has brought helicopter sightseeing tours around Manhattan under scrutiny. Five commercial sightseeing helicopters have gone down in the rivers around Manhattan since 2005 as a result of mechanical failure, pilot error or collision, killing 20 people.
A total of 38 people have died in helicopter failures since 1977. The last had occurred in 2019.
Chuck Schumer, a New York senator, said soon after the latest crash that 'there is one thing we know for sure about New York City's helicopter tour companies: they have a deadly track record, and it is usually the companies – not the pilots – that are openly manipulating Federal Aviation Administration rules, cutting corners and putting profits over people'.
But Eric Adams, New York City's mayor, rejected calls to ban non-essential air travel around the city, arguing that it supports efforts to attract businesses and tourism.
'That is part of the attractions of businesses being in the city, people coming to the city, seeing the city from the air. As part of the attraction, what we must do is make sure it's safe, make sure is done correctly,' the mayor said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Daily Mail
11 minutes ago
- Daily Mail
Emmy-winning meteorologist awarded enormous payout after claiming boss intimidated her and gave male co-workers the best shifts
An Emmy -winning meteorologist has been awarded over $800,000 after a judge ruled her former employer had discriminated against her. Meghan Danahey had filed suit against her former bosses at KMOV - a St. Louis CBS affiliate - claiming they caused her anxiety and depression while harming her job prospects. Danahey had worked at the channel for six years starting in 2014 covering weekday weather broadcasts before she said he shift patterns changed in 2016. Around that time the station hired news director Scott Diener who made the changes, handing Danahey's male colleagues her shifts while she was placed on weekends. According to her suit Danahey was also given a general reporting role for the weekdays, something which she had never done before. She claimed that Diener had intimidated her and contacted her union rep to report his alleged behavior. As the suit went through the courts, a jury ruled in April that Diener had not discriminated against Danahey. He retired from the station in June. However in August, Judge Annette Llewellyn ruled in her favor against the station's parent company that the changes were practically a demotion despite no issues being raised over her performance or ratings. Records seen by the St. Louis Post Dispatch say that Diener and others spoke about Danahey in emails, saying they didn't like 'the way they were spoken to' by her. The changes came into effect in January 2020 and Danahey and her female colleague covered seven weather broadcasts a month, their male counterparts did 45. Danahey said that as the COVID pandemic took over the world the male meteorologists were given equipment to set up from him. She said that her and her female colleagues were not given this chance, and still required to come into the studio to work. Following this, Danahey was fired in September of 2020 with the station saying the move was part of a company-wide reduction in staff. Judge Llewellyn said the evidence showed that Danahey's superiors sought to oust her before an arbitration hearing over her grievance she flagged with her union. The ruling said: 'Miraculously, a reduction in force was necessary in September 2020, according to Defendant, which it used as an opportunity to rid itself of (Danahey's) constant complaining and what management believed was her unacceptable way of speaking to them.' Following her dismissal, she landed a new job as a meteorologist in Ashveille, North Carolina, taking less pay to land the job, court papers say. In total she was awarded $326,800 in lost wages, and $4,000 for costs relating to rent and security after moving to North Carolina. She was also handed $425,000 in punitive damages and had her attorney fees covered which totaled $70,040. Her lawyer Jerry Dobson told the St. Louis Post Dispatch: 'It has been a long and hard road for Meghan. It's very gratifying to see she has been vindicated in a court of law.' Danahey had previously won an Emmy award as part of a weather team who covered Charlotte, North Carolina. She is also an Adjunct Professor at University of North Carolina Asheville where she teaches Broadcast Meteorology.
The Independent
41 minutes ago
- The Independent
Four young sisters rescued from rock in Lake Superior after getting stranded while paddle-boarding
Four young girls aged 8 to 14 were rescued from a rock in Lake Superior after a paddleboarding incident. On the morning of Sunday, 17 August, around 8 am, Minnesota authorities received a call from two concerned parents saying that their four daughters were missing. The four girls had set out from the city of Black Beach in Silver Bay and had gotten stranded on a small island when they lost their paddles. Once they were found by the Coast Guard, they were airlifted from the rock and transferred to Emergency Medical Services nearby. The four sisters are now recovering.
The Guardian
42 minutes ago
- The Guardian
Is my friend mad at me or am I just insecure?
A friend recently shared a post from the satirical site Reductress. It depicted a woman, arms held triumphantly aloft, beneath the headline: 'She Did It! This Woman Was Able To Confirm That Everyone Was Not Mad At Her!' When I asked her about it, my friend admitted that it was partly a ploy to flush out anyone who might indeed be mad at her. 'The way I deal with it externally is to make a joke about it,' she said. 'And a few people did message me – also sort of in jest, but not really – to be like 'Don't worry, I'm not mad at you!'' I sometimes feel the same heart-sinking insecurity. If I haven't heard from a friend in a while, or their most recent message seemed a bit curt, my mind throws up the question: did I do something wrong? In many ways it's a senseless reaction – I've no real reason to believe I've offended or upset them; they're probably just busy. Yet I can't shake the feeling. Especially if I'm tired, stressed or premenstrual, I can convince myself that my friend actively hates me – and that any evidence that they ever enjoyed my company or appreciated me as a person was fake. I surveyed my friends about the phenomenon, and it seems common. Some act on the insecurity, asking if they've done something wrong. 'It's become a running joke,' said Cat. Others fret, second-guessing their last interaction or reading into text messages. Lauren said that one- or two-word responses, full stops or use of her name put her 'immediately on high alert'. Even reassuring language can set off these fears. 'I actually don't think I could even hear 'No worries' without assuming sarcasm,' said Michael. Why are we so quick to assume that our friends are mad at us – or even itching to drop us? 'When we fear that our friends are mad at us, it feels really convincing,' says psychotherapist Meg Josephson. 'We're trying to alleviate this anxiety, so we seek reassurance – 'Was I annoying? Was I weird?' – but it's not getting to the actual feeling that's underneath it.' In her new book Are You Mad At Me?, Josephson says this impulse is driven by a desire to please and be affirmed. The so-called 'fawn response' is one way we respond to threats, whether real (physical danger) or perceived (your friend taking longer than usual to text you back). 'The fawn response is about appeasing the threat, so that you can feel safe,' says Josephson. 'Your immediate instinct is to be 'Are we OK?' – or to compliment them, or be helpful to them, so that you can defuse the perceived tension.' Less well known than the fight or flight response, it is often developed in childhood in response to critical or emotionally neglectful parents, or a volatile home environment, Josephson says. Women are especially susceptible, being socialised to put others at ease. The fawn response isn't bad; often, it keeps the peace. Yet over time, it can become compulsive, stoking a cycle of reassurance-seeking. We might intellectually understand that a friend isn't upset with us – but those 'old ways of being' bite hard, Josephson says. 'Something was learned: 'I need to try harder and do more to be loved.'' The pattern is self-defeating in two ways. First, it conceives of friendship as conditional, which can 'keep people at a distance', Josephson says. Worse still, assuming everyone is annoyed with you can become a self-fulfilling prophecy. 'When we seek reassurance, that can put quite a strain on the relationship.' Lauren, who reads into short text messages, has found this. 'Pressing too hard' sometimes makes the fear a reality: 'I almost always wish I never asked, because it almost always backfires.' The attempted mind-reading and 'anxious rumination' can become exhausting, says Josephson. It also doesn't actually protect you against conflict. 'Sometimes people will be mad at you,' Josephson says. 'They will misjudge you, misunderstand you, misperceive you.' The key is understanding that it is not the end of the world – or a friendship. Sign up to Well Actually Practical advice, expert insights and answers to your questions about how to live a good life after newsletter promotion 'Especially if we grew up in more volatile homes, where conflict was brushed under the rug or we didn't witness disagreement handled in a safe way, we learn to fear conflict' as terminal, Josephson says. 'Actually, in healthy relationships, a little bit of friction is really good, because it means both people can have differing opinions.' Conflict is not only inevitable; it can even be healing, she adds, demonstrating that disagreement or discomfort doesn't have to come at the cost of intimacy. 'Repair is what leads to closeness.' With nearly 600,000 followers across TikTok and Instagram, Josephson often hears how social media worsens social anxiety. The lack of nonverbal cues and other context make it easy to misinterpret the tone of messages. Additionally, 'because there are so many ways to connect, there's also so many ways to feel forgotten,' she says. ''Why did they see my story, but not respond to my text?'' Since the fawn response often registers as a sense of urgency, technology can enable us to act on it. We might fire off a message seeking reassurance against our better judgement. So if your friend sends an unusually short text, instead of rushing to confirm that they hate you, Josephson advises pausing for 30 minutes, or even just a breath. 'Slow down and acknowledge the feeling beneath it: 'Am I anxious right now? What's going on?'… Oftentimes, we find it's just like a craving that sort of passes.' This helps to relax the cycle of reassurance-seeking, and convince 'our bodies that we're safe', she says. 'We're bringing that unconscious pattern into the conscious mind, and that's making a huge difference.' With practice, it's possible to increase your tolerance for discomfort and gain more control over your response to triggers. But you can also try to trust your friends. When they say you weren't weird or annoying, and that they didn't reply because they're busy, tired or distracted – 'take what they say at face value,' says Josephson. More from Why am I like this: I'm an adult. Why do I regress under my parents' roof? My friends made plans without me – is it weird to invite myself? Why do I feel like I'm stuck in a 'waiting room', hoping for my life to get started? I'm disagreeable – and it's backed by science. Can I change my personality? Instead of inventing stories about why they might be mad at you, or seeking reassurance at every turn, trust that they will tell you if – or when – they are. 'It's a way to release control over things that we never had control over in the first place,' says Jacobson. After all, there's no question you can ask, no magic sequence of words you can say that will fix someone's perception of you. Even if there were, you might be robbing yourself of opportunities to grow, learn or deepen a bond. I think about all the times I forgot to text a friend back – it's never because my feelings about them had changed. 'Realising that no one's thinking about us as much as we think they are is very liberating,' says Josephson. But for any of my friends who might have anxiously read this far, I'm happy to put your mind at ease – I am not mad at you. And if you're mad at me – just let me know. Are You Mad At Me?: How to Stop Focusing on What Others Think and Start Living for You by Meg Josephson is out now
