EC135 Tailboom Separation: What Happened Near Pompano Beach Airpark?

Helicopter flying can be extremely unforgiving. Things can unravel in seconds, sometimes in ways no simulator or checklist can fully prepare us for 👀

On August 28, 2023, an EC135 air medical helicopter operated by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office lifted from Pompano Beach Airpark on what should have been a routine flight to help someone in need.

Less than two minutes later, it was in flames, spinning out of control, and heading toward an apartment building, as you can see here:

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has now released its final report. What it reveals is a chain of failures: some mechanical, some human, and some stemming from system design limits.

As is so often the case in aviation accidents, the story is not about a single failure but about how multiple small cracks aligned into a horrible crash.

We go through exactly what happened, what contributed to this event, and most importantly: what lessons we as pilots can learn from it all 💡

We don’t publish all our Notes from the Cockpit (like this one) publicly, some are shared only by email. Get the next one sent straight to your inbox ⤵️

🚨 Accident Overview

🔸 Date: August 28, 2023
🔸 Time: 08:44 Local
🔸 Aircraft: Eurocopter EC135 T1 (N109BC)
🔸 Operator: Broward County Sheriff’s Office (Part 135 Air Medical)
🔸 Location: Pompano Beach, Florida
🔸 Mission: Dispatch to transport a patient from a motor vehicle accident
🔸 Fatalities: 2 (one flight paramedic, one person on the ground)
🔸 Injuries: 1 serious (2nd flight paramedic), 1 minor (pilot)
🔸 Aircraft damage: Destroyed

On August 28, 2023, a Eurocopter EC135 helicopter operated by the Broward County Sheriff’s Office crashed while on a medical mission after suffering an in-flight fire.

Soon after takeoff, the No. 1 engine experienced a control system failure that locked its fuel flow at a climb setting.

The pilot heard a loud bang, saw rising temperatures, a fire warning, and attempted to reduce power and activate the fire suppression system. However, the malfunction meant throttle adjustments had no effect, and the fire protection system was only designed for fires inside the engine compartment.

Witness videos and investigation evidence showed a fire outside the No. 1 engine compartment near the exhaust and air conditioning system.

The extreme heat damaged nearby fibreglass and composite structures, leading to partial tailboom separation. The helicopter entered a spin and struck an apartment building.

⏱️ Timeline of Events

So what happened exactly in what order? Let’s take a look ⤵️

Departure

At 08:44 local time, the EC135 departed Pompano Beach Airpark on a medical dispatch. Conditions were good: light winds, clear visibility, nothing unusual.

+67 seconds after departure

Electronic data from the No. 1 engine’s control system recorded a double N1 and N2 failure. This condition should have triggered a “FADEC FAIL” caution, freezing the fuel control unit (FCU) at its current flow rate (about 123 liters per hour), equivalent to climb power.

However, the pilot reported no caution or warning in the cockpit. Without that cue, he had no reason to know his left engine was effectively locked at high power.

A manual throttle input (the collective twist grip, not the switch) was required here to reduce the fuel flow to something more appropriate, given the situation.

90 seconds after departure (300 – 400 feet AGL)

The pilot heard a loud bang from the rear of the aircraft. Scanning the gauges, he saw the turbine outlet temperature (TOT) on the No. 1 engine rising, though still technically within limits.

Reacting as any pilot would, he retarded the throttle to idle, declared an emergency to ATC, and turned back toward the airport.

The problem? Because of the FADEC failure, the throttle had no effect on actual fuel flow. Only manual twist-grip control would have reduced it.

To the pilot, it looked like he was reducing power. In reality, nothing had changed.

Engine fire indications

The No. 1 engine fire light illuminated. The pilot later stated he pressed the fire button to activate suppression. Post-accident evidence told a different story: the button’s safety wire was unbroken, and there was no sign it had been pressed.

Even if he had pressed it, the suppression system only covered the engine bay. The fire was outside, in the airframe structure near the exhaust. The system would not have put it out.

Temperatures climb

TOT on the No. 1 engine climbed to around 1,000 °C, well beyond the published maximum of 895 °C. Exhaust gases this hot don’t just stress turbine blades, they can ignite anything combustible nearby.

In this case, that meant the fiberglass air-conditioner housing and the composite tailboom structure. Neither material was certified to withstand these kind of temperatures…

3 Minutes after departure

Roughly 90 seconds after the first bang (3 minutes after departure), the pilot heard a second bang.

This time, the tailboom partially separated. With the Fenestron compromised, the helicopter yawed uncontrollably into a right-hand spin.

Impact

The EC135 descended rapidly, striking the roof of a one-story apartment building. One resident inside was killed, alongside a flight paramedic. A second paramedic suffered serious injuries. The pilot escaped with minor injuries.

A post-crash fire destroyed most of the airframe.

🔍 Investigation Findings

The NTSB’s analysis focused on three interlinked failures:

1️⃣ FADEC Failure

🔸 The simultaneous double N1/N2 failure effectively froze the fuel control at climb power.

🔸 No cockpit warnings were recalled by the pilot, leaving him unaware of the abnormal condition.

2️⃣ Overheating and Fire

🔸 The No. 1 engine’s turbine blades showed evidence of overheat fatigue cracking above 1,295 °C.

🔸 Exhaust gases at over 1,000 °C likely ignited the fiberglass air-conditioner housing and composite tailboom.

🔸 No internal fire detection or suppression system would have been able to deal with a fire that’s spread to components outside the engine compartment.

3️⃣ Structural Failure

🔸 As the fire spread, the tailboom structure weakened and partially separated.

🔸 The loss of a functional tail rotor led to the uncontrolled spin and eventual crash.

⠀

Probable Cause

The NTSB concluded the probable cause(s) to be:

“An inflight fire outside of the engine firewalls, likely from overheating of the No. 1 engine for undetermined reasons, which resulted in a partial tailboom separation.”

The root cause of the fuel flow malfunction itself could not be pinpointed, as the post-impact fire damage made a definitive conclusion impossible.

💡 What Can We Learn From This?

There are a few things here that we can take away as pilots ⤵️

1️⃣ Not all failures are in the book

The EC135’s fire warning system was working as designed. It simply wasn’t designed to deal with a fire outside the engine bay.

For the pilot, there was no clear warning of the seriousness of the situation. This highlights a limitation we all face: aircraft systems only monitor what they are designed to, not everything that can go wrong.

2️⃣ FADEC failures can be deceptive

In modern twin-engine helicopters, FADEC makes life easier, until it fails. With fuel flow frozen, normal throttle movements no longer behave as expected. Unless pilots are specifically trained for it, the assumption is that “idle” means idle. Here, it didn’t.

The only solution would have been switching to manual twist-grip control, which can be hard to realise under pressure.

3️⃣ Proximity of components matter

The air-conditioner unit, installed just 16 flight hours before the accident, introduced a new vulnerability. Positioned near the No. 1 exhaust, its fiberglass housing had no chance against sustained 1,000 °C exhaust gases.

Certification doesn’t always consider these “secondary” risks, something operators and maintainers should always keep in mind. We saw a similar thing in our report covering the AW139 that landed after engine problems:

How This AW139 Crew Dealt With Complete Loss of Collective Control

4️⃣ Decision-making with incomplete information can be tough

Should the pilot have landed immediately in a field instead of attempting a turnback? With hindsight, perhaps.

But with no indication of an external fire and only one engine apparently malfunctioning, his decision to return to the airport was reasonable.

This underscores the tension we all face as pilots: balancing risk, decisions, and working with incomplete data.

5️⃣ The chain is always longer than it looks

This accident wasn’t caused by a single turbine failure. It was caused by a chain: FADEC fail ➡️ overheating ➡️ external fire ➡️ structural compromise ➡️ loss of control.

Any one of those links on its own might not have been catastrophic. Together, they resulted in a fatal accident.

⚠️ Questions Arising from the Report

We have been made aware of a few inaccuracies within the NTSB report, which we briefly want to address – thanks to Rotary Wing Geek.

It also raises a question we have had for a little while, as to why more often than not, many recent investigation reports are much shorter, and much less in-depth than anticipated. Often leaving many questions unanswered.

In regard to this particular investigation report, these are the main points that are worth highlighting:

🔸 The report mentions “throttle”, however what they should have stated was “engine switch”, which is different and should not be used interchangeably by an investigation team.

🔸 There isn’t any reference to the EC135 emergency procedures outlined by airbus, and how these were or were not adhered to.

🔸 There isn’t any detail of the training records – which is a critical area to overlook.

🔸 A lack of safety recommendations (as we have seen in other reports) – the willingness to learn from accidents and incidents in aviation is a key part of our safety culture, and it is disappointing to see this being omitted.

🔄 Conclusion

The Pompano Beach EC135 crash is a sobering reminder that helicopter systems can fail in ways we don’t anticipate. The pilot was experienced, the aircraft was maintained, and meteorological conditions were benign.

Yet within two minutes of takeoff, an undetected FADEC failure set off a chain of events that neither training nor checklist fully prepared the crew for.

As tragic as this accident was, it gives us the chance to reflect. Every investigation is written in hindsight. Our job is to take those lessons forward and apply them to any situation we think might be similar.

You can find the full investigation report here.