Property and Equipment, net

12 Months Ended

Apr. 30, 2016

6. Property and Equipment, net

Property and equipment consist of the following:


	April 30,
	2016		2015
	(In thousands)
Leasehold improvements	$	8,939	$	9,117
Machinery and equipment		48,034		45,525
Furniture and fixtures		1,730		1,877
Computer equipment and software		30,171		26,223
Construction in process		3,885		1,634
Property and equipment, gross		92,759		84,376
Less accumulated depreciation and amortization		(75,997)		(70,877)
Property and equipment, net	$	16,762	$	13,499

Depreciation expense for the years ended April 30, 2016, 2015 and 2014 was $5,993,000, $8,116,000 and $8,930,000, respectively. At April 30, 2016, property and equipment includes computer equipment and software under capital leases with a cost basis of $1,836,000 and accumulated depreciation of $1,058,000. Depreciation of computer equipment and software under capital leases was $455,000 for the fiscal year ended April 30, 2016. Refer also to Out-of-Period Adjustments disclosure within Note 1, Organization and Significant Accounting Policies.

At April 30, 2014, an analysis of the Company’s long‑lived assets related to Tier II helicopter demonstration assets and an exclusive license agreement to sell Tier II helicopters indicated impairment. At April 30, 2014 the Company determined that the carrying value of the Tier II helicopter demonstration assets and license agreement would not be recovered over the estimated useful life of the primary assets due to the delay of market adoption resulting in lower than anticipated sales. Accordingly, the Company completed an impairment test for this asset group, which resulted in an impairment charge of $3,317,000 that was recorded in SG&A costs of which $2,645,000 was related to the Tier II helicopter demonstration assets and $672,000 was related to the exclusive distribution license. To determine the amount of the impairment charge, the Company was required to make estimates of the fair value of the assets in this group, and these estimates were based on the use of the income approach to determine the fair value of the equipment.