Narrative:

Experienced an engine malfunction while working in the dalles, oregon. While I continued to work in another aircraft the portland FSDO arrived at the accident site. Because my employer requested I continue, I was not present at the site. I was on radio and could have been contacted if requested. After completing the work I went to the site, but they had departed. The next day I spoke with a portland FSDO concerning the events that took place. As we were discussing the accident, (FAA inspector) implicated disapproval for my absence, at that time I explained that I was on radio, and could have been obtained at any time. He then began re-wording my statement over the phone, I explained that that is not what I said. I attempted to give him a general account of what happened, and explained that because I had requested to continue to fly, I had mentally blocked the accident to remain focused on my work. He continued to question, speak for me, and even said 'he would have done' in the situation. At that time I said my statement of the accident would be in the report. Following our conversation they once again came to inspect the aircraft, taking the logbooks with them, making it impossible for me to complete the NTSB report accurately. I then had to leave town and my employer agreed to finish and file the report as soon as the logbooks were obtained (a copy of my report was faxed to FSDO). Time elapsed and the report had still not been filed with the NTSB. Upon arriving back to portland (ferrying an aircraft) I found that the form was still not completed. Callback conversation with reporter revealed the following information: reporter stated that he mainly wanted to obtain immunity from any possible violation of the FARS by reporting this accident since he was admonished by the FAA inspector as to why he did not stay at the scene of the forced landing accident, or the timely submissions of an accident report. He had not heard further of any follow up action in this regard. He further stated that the helicopter received damage to the main and tail rotor blades and landing skid brace. He was engaged in crop control of cherry trees dehumiditizing when the engine began 'sputtering' and losing power. He was forced to land at once resulting in hitting the cherry trees as the landing was made. The only problem found thus far was a magneto ignition fault causing the engine to run rough and loss of engine power.

Related reports:

Google
 

Original NASA ASRS Text

Title: PLT OF AN SMA HELI LOST PWR DURING AN INDUSTRIAL OP OVER CHERRY TREES AND WAS FORCED TO LAND RESULTING IN DAMAGE TO THE MAIN AND TAIL ROTOR BLADES AND LNDG SKID. THERE WERE NO INJURIES.

Narrative: EXPERIENCED AN ENG MALFUNCTION WHILE WORKING IN THE DALLES, OREGON. WHILE I CONTINUED TO WORK IN ANOTHER ACFT THE PORTLAND FSDO ARRIVED AT THE ACCIDENT SITE. BECAUSE MY EMPLOYER REQUESTED I CONTINUE, I WAS NOT PRESENT AT THE SITE. I WAS ON RADIO AND COULD HAVE BEEN CONTACTED IF REQUESTED. AFTER COMPLETING THE WORK I WENT TO THE SITE, BUT THEY HAD DEPARTED. THE NEXT DAY I SPOKE WITH A PORTLAND FSDO CONCERNING THE EVENTS THAT TOOK PLACE. AS WE WERE DISCUSSING THE ACCIDENT, (FAA INSPECTOR) IMPLICATED DISAPPROVAL FOR MY ABSENCE, AT THAT TIME I EXPLAINED THAT I WAS ON RADIO, AND COULD HAVE BEEN OBTAINED AT ANY TIME. HE THEN BEGAN RE-WORDING MY STATEMENT OVER THE PHONE, I EXPLAINED THAT THAT IS NOT WHAT I SAID. I ATTEMPTED TO GIVE HIM A GENERAL ACCOUNT OF WHAT HAPPENED, AND EXPLAINED THAT BECAUSE I HAD REQUESTED TO CONTINUE TO FLY, I HAD MENTALLY BLOCKED THE ACCIDENT TO REMAIN FOCUSED ON MY WORK. HE CONTINUED TO QUESTION, SPEAK FOR ME, AND EVEN SAID 'HE WOULD HAVE DONE' IN THE SIT. AT THAT TIME I SAID MY STATEMENT OF THE ACCIDENT WOULD BE IN THE RPT. FOLLOWING OUR CONVERSATION THEY ONCE AGAIN CAME TO INSPECT THE ACFT, TAKING THE LOGBOOKS WITH THEM, MAKING IT IMPOSSIBLE FOR ME TO COMPLETE THE NTSB RPT ACCURATELY. I THEN HAD TO LEAVE TOWN AND MY EMPLOYER AGREED TO FINISH AND FILE THE RPT AS SOON AS THE LOGBOOKS WERE OBTAINED (A COPY OF MY RPT WAS FAXED TO FSDO). TIME ELAPSED AND THE RPT HAD STILL NOT BEEN FILED WITH THE NTSB. UPON ARRIVING BACK TO PORTLAND (FERRYING AN ACFT) I FOUND THAT THE FORM WAS STILL NOT COMPLETED. CALLBACK CONVERSATION WITH RPTR REVEALED THE FOLLOWING INFO: RPTR STATED THAT HE MAINLY WANTED TO OBTAIN IMMUNITY FROM ANY POSSIBLE VIOLATION OF THE FARS BY RPTING THIS ACCIDENT SINCE HE WAS ADMONISHED BY THE FAA INSPECTOR AS TO WHY HE DID NOT STAY AT THE SCENE OF THE FORCED LNDG ACCIDENT, OR THE TIMELY SUBMISSIONS OF AN ACCIDENT RPT. HE HAD NOT HEARD FURTHER OF ANY FOLLOW UP ACTION IN THIS REGARD. HE FURTHER STATED THAT THE HELI RECEIVED DAMAGE TO THE MAIN AND TAIL ROTOR BLADES AND LNDG SKID BRACE. HE WAS ENGAGED IN CROP CTL OF CHERRY TREES DEHUMIDITIZING WHEN THE ENG BEGAN 'SPUTTERING' AND LOSING PWR. HE WAS FORCED TO LAND AT ONCE RESULTING IN HITTING THE CHERRY TREES AS THE LNDG WAS MADE. THE ONLY PROB FOUND THUS FAR WAS A MAGNETO IGNITION FAULT CAUSING THE ENG TO RUN ROUGH AND LOSS OF ENG PWR.

Data retrieved from NASA's ASRS site as of July 2007 and automatically converted to unabbreviated mixed upper/lowercase text. This report is for informational purposes with no guarantee of accuracy. See NASA's ASRS site for official report.