Bell 407 Helicopter Accidents: What the NTSB Records Show

What the Bell 407 Is and How It Is Used

The NTSB's own records describe the Bell 407 as a helicopter, listing it by make and model as "Bell 407" or, in one record, as a "Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 407." This is an information page about the aircraft type. Nothing on it suggests that the manufacturer or any operator caused an accident or broke a rule.

The five recent records described below show the same model flying very different missions. According to those NTSB reports, Bell 407s were flown by a state police agency on flight instruction training, by a sheriff's office, on a law-enforcement mission supporting officers on the ground, on an air medical flight, and on a personal flight in mountainous terrain.

Federal aviation law sorts flights into categories, and the records use three of them:

• Part 91, the general rules that cover personal and other general aviation flying.
• Part 135, which covers charter, air taxi and air medical operations. These are commercial operations, and the operator holds a certificate to fly them.
• Public aircraft operations, which are flights run by government agencies such as police departments.

Each category comes with a different set of federal rules. If you were hurt in a Bell 407 crash, or lost someone in one, the operator's category is often one of the first facts that shapes the legal picture, because it bears on which federal standards applied that day and who held responsibility for the flight. Where the operator was a government agency, as in two of the records below, that adds its own questions about how claims against a public body are handled, which a conversation with an attorney can help sort out. Our page on small plane crashes explains the Part 91 and Part 135 difference in more depth.

How the NTSB Investigates a Helicopter Accident

The NTSB describes itself in its reports as "an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States." Under 49 C.F.R. § 831.4, the agency investigates "to determine the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to an accident." It then uses those results to determine "one or more probable causes" and to issue safety recommendations. A probable cause is the NTSB's own statement of why it concludes an accident happened.

Investigations usually show up in public in two stages. A preliminary report is an early factual summary, and each one carries the line "This information is preliminary and subject to change." It states no probable cause, and the investigation stays open. A final report closes the investigation and, where the NTSB states one, gives its probable cause.

The same regulation says these investigations are "fact-finding proceedings with no adverse parties." They "are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights, liabilities, or blame of any person or entity." Families sometimes expect the NTSB report to settle who is responsible. It is not built to do that.

Federal law also keeps the report out of court. Under 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b), "No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." The NTSB's final reports note that a separate factual report "may be admissible" under that section. The same statute separately limits discovery of cockpit voice and video recordings. Our pilot error page explains why an investigative label is not a court finding.

Recent Bell 407 Accident Records in the United States

The records below are the newest U.S. NTSB records naming the Bell 407, listed newest first, as the NTSB dataset carried them on October 17, 2026. This list is Aviation Justice Group's own selection from that dataset, not a statistic the NTSB published. Records located in California are left out of this national page.

In this dataset, the injury level is the highest injury recorded for the event. "None" means no one was recorded as injured. It does not mean the aircraft was undamaged. Three of the "None" records below describe substantial damage.

If one of these records concerns your accident, its status tells you what the agency has and has not concluded so far, and its accident number is the reference that ties the official file to your questions.

ERA26FA309, August 19, 2026, Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The aircraft is listed as a Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 407, and the highest injury recorded is fatal. The NTSB's preliminary report for ERA26FA309 states that the helicopter and a Cessna 150H "collided in flight." It also states that the two commercial pilots on the helicopter were seriously injured and that the airplane's pilot was fatally injured. According to the report, the Pennsylvania State Police operated the helicopter as a public aircraft. The investigation is open, the dataset carried no probable cause, and the report itself says it is preliminary and subject to change.

CEN26LA185, May 12, 2026, Dallas, Texas. The aircraft is a Bell 407, and the highest injury recorded is none. The NTSB's final report for CEN26LA185 describes a Part 135 air medical flight and substantial damage. It states that the pilot and the two-person medical crew were not injured. The dataset row did not carry a probable-cause statement. The final report's Probable Cause and Findings section reads: "The pilot's failure to maintain situational awareness and clearance from the helipad surveillance camera during liftoff." Our Texas aviation accident page covers that state's rules.

WPR26LA172, April 29, 2026, Young, Arizona. The aircraft is a Bell 407, and the highest injury recorded is none. The final report for WPR26LA172 describes a Part 91 personal flight and substantial damage. It states the NTSB's probable cause as "The pilot's failure to maintain clearance from a tree stump during landing in mountainous terrain."

ERA26LA170, April 10, 2026, Jacksonville, Florida. The aircraft is a Bell 407, and the highest injury recorded is none. The final report for ERA26LA170 lists the operator as doing business as the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office and records substantial damage from a hard landing. It states the NTSB's probable cause as "The pilot's improper recovery from a practice autorotation, which resulted in a hard landing." The report adds a contributing factor: "the flight instructor's inadequate supervision of the pilot receiving the instruction."

WPR26FA098, February 4, 2026, Flagstaff, Arizona. The aircraft is a Bell 407, and the highest injury recorded is fatal. The NTSB's preliminary report for WPR26FA098 states that the pilot and the tactical flight officer were fatally injured during a public-use law-enforcement flight. The investigation is open, and no probable cause has been stated. The report's description of the final moments of the flight is preliminary and subject to change.

What the Investigation Status Means for Someone Affected

An open investigation means the NTSB has not stated why the accident happened. For the two fatal records above, that is where things stand as the dataset showed them. A family reading one of those preliminary reports is reading facts the agency has gathered so far, not a conclusion. A final report with a probable cause gives the agency's answer to the safety question. It still does not decide anyone's legal rights.

That difference can feel frustrating. Families often want one official answer. The legal system works on its own track, and it does not wait for the NTSB to finish.

Claims for injury or wrongful death are governed by state law. A state's limitation period is the deadline for filing a lawsuit, and it is set by statute, not by the NTSB's timeline. These periods differ from state to state. When a period starts, and what exceptions apply, depend on the state's own statute. No single period applies everywhere.

Because § 1154(b) keeps the NTSB report out of a civil damages case, those cases are built on evidence gathered on their own. That evidence can include wreckage, maintenance records, witness accounts and recordings. The NTSB regulation at 49 C.F.R. § 831.13 shows how much of this the agency collects itself. It lists photographs, physical evidence, interview statements, wreckage documentation, flight data and cockpit voice recorder information, and surveillance video. Parties who take part in the investigation generally must promptly provide such information to the NTSB unless the NTSB authorizes them to keep it.

For a family in this position, the open questions are which state's law may apply, what its deadline is, and what evidence exists outside the NTSB file. If those questions are on your mind, you may want to consider a conversation about your Bell 407 accident with our attorney.

Legal Theories That May Apply After a Bell 407 Crash

If you were hurt in one of these crashes, or lost someone in one, three legal frameworks tend to come up first. Which ones fit a given accident depends on its facts and on the law of the state involved.

Negligence. If someone's carelessness may have played a part, a negligence claim looks at four things: whether that person or company owed you a duty of care, whether they breached it, whether the breach caused your harm, and whether you suffered damages. Depending on who controlled what, that duty can belong to an operator, a pilot, a maintenance provider or others. Whether each element is met depends on the evidence. No crash proves negligence on its own.

Product liability. If a failed part or a design problem may have been involved, product liability asks whether a defect existed in the aircraft, a component or a part, and whether that defect caused the injury. The fact that a crash happened does not prove a defect. Both points turn on the evidence and on the state's product-liability rules.

Wrongful death. If a crash took the life of someone close to you, state law may give survivors a wrongful-death claim. Each state decides who may bring it, which damages it may allow and how long survivors have to file. Our aviation wrongful death page explains how these claims work.

These claims sit inside two layers of law. For someone affected, federal aviation rules set the standards the flight was expected to meet: how it was operated and how the aircraft was maintained and inspected. Those standards differ between a Part 135 operation and a Part 91 flight. State tort law decides most civil claims for damages. How federal standards bear on a state claim is a legal question that depends on the case, not a settled rule, and it is one of the things a conversation with an attorney can help sort out. Our page on the aviation accident lawyer topic covers that layering generally.

Questions Worth Asking Before Speaking With an Attorney

If you are thinking about talking with an attorney, the conversation usually starts with the basic facts of the flight. The records and facts that tend to matter include:

• the operator's name and the kind of FAA certificate it held, if any;
• the aircraft's registration number, called the N-number (for example, the Dallas record lists N652AE);
• the NTSB accident number, such as ERA26FA309, which identifies the official investigation record;
• maintenance and airworthiness records for the aircraft;
• photos and video from the scene or the aftermath;
• medical records describing the injuries and treatment; and
• the names of anyone who saw the flight or the crash.

Families rarely have all of this at the start, and that is expected. Some of it, like the accident number and the N-number, often appears in the NTSB's own report. Other pieces, like maintenance records, are held by others. Because the NTSB report itself stays out of a civil damages case, these outside records are often what a claim is built on, and knowing which questions are still open is a reasonable place to begin.