OpenAirDocs.org

19960728020119A

Accident · Substantial damage
Open the Markdown

FAA accident report · Cessna 182G · Portland, OR · July 28, 1996

FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal

© OpenStreetMap
Date
July 28, 1996 · 19:27 local
Place
Portland, OR
Airport
Portland International
Phase of flight
Final Approach
Operating rules
General operating rules (Part 91)
Damage
Substantial damage
Aircraft
N3135S
NTSB investigation
NTSBSEA96LA173
Reported as
Cessna 182G
Reported engine
Continental O470U
Fatal injuries
0
Pilot’s flight hours
733 total100 in this make and model48 in the last 90 days
N3135SRegistration cancelled Aug 7, 2000 · Cessna 182GS/N 18255635Airframe modelCessna 182G

From the FAA’s Accident/Incident Data System (AIDS), through its Aviation Safety Information Portal, as reported. The NTSB investigates accidents separately, and its record of an accident is the fuller one. The aircraft is matched to the registry by N-number and event date, checked against the reported make and model; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

What happened

The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.

Crashed on landing due to possible wake turbulence. (.4)the tower controller instructed the Cessna 182 pilot to expedite his visual flight rules (VFR) approach and follow an MD-80 airliner on straight-in final. The Cessna pilot reported the MD-80 in sight (at 2.3 to 3.6 nautical miles) and complied with the instructions. The Cessna encountered the MD-80'S wake turbulence about 200 feet above ground level on final; the pilot lost control and the aircraft crashed. Radar data showed that the Cessna closed to approximately 0.9 miles behind the MD-80, and descended 200 feet below the MD-80'S glide path (contrary to wake turbulence avoidance guidance in the faa's aeronautical information manual [aim]). A 4-mile minimum separation distance would have been required for radar separation, but no minimum distance was required for visual separation. The aim states that controllers are required to apply minimum landing separation distances for wake turbulence, without distinguishing between visual and radar separation environments. In February 1994, the NTSB issued recommendations to the FAA I ndicating a belief that VFR aircraft should observe instrument flight rules (IFR) wake turbulence separation distance.

As the FAA filed it

CRASHED ON LANDING DUE TO POSSIBLE WAKE TURBULENCE. (.4)THE TOWER CONTROLLER INSTRUCTED THE CESSNA 182 PILOT TO EXPEDITE HIS VISUAL FLIGHT RULES (VFR) APPROACH AND FOLLOW AN MD-80 AIRLINER ON STRAIGHT-IN FINAL. THE CESSNA PILOT REPORTED THE MD-80 IN SIGHT (AT 2.3 TO 3.6 NAUTICAL MILES) AND COMPLIED WITH THE INSTRUCTIONS. THE CESSNA ENCOUNTERED THE MD-80'S WAKE TURBULENCE ABOUT 200 FEET ABOVE GROUND LEVEL ON FINAL; THE PILOT LOST CONTROL AND THE AIRCRAFT CRASHED. RADAR DATA SHOWED THAT THE CESSNA CLOSED TO APPROXIMATELY 0.9 MILES BEHIND THE MD-80, AND DESCENDED 200 FEET BELOW THE MD-80'S GLIDE PATH (CONTRARY TO WAKE TURBULENCE AVOIDANCE GUIDANCE IN THE FAA'S AERONAUTICAL INFORMATION MANUAL [AIM]). A 4-MILE MINIMUM SEPARATION DISTANCE WOULD HAVE BEEN REQUIRED FOR RADAR SEPARATION, BUT NO MINIMUM DISTANCE WAS REQUIRED FOR VISUAL SEPARATION. THE AIM STATES THAT CONTROLLERS ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY MINIMUM LANDING SEPARATION DISTANCES FOR WAKE TURBULENCE, WITHOUT DISTINGUISHING BETWEEN VISUAL AND RADAR SEPARATION ENVIRONMENTS. IN FEBRUARY 1994, THE NTSB ISSUED RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE FAA I NDICATING A BELIEF THAT VFR AIRCRAFT SHOULD OBSERVE INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES (IFR) WAKE TURBULENCE SEPARATION DISTANCE.

NTSB investigation

The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.

NTSB SEA96LA173Accident · Minor injuriesLimited investigationFinal reportPortland, ORThe pilot's failure to maintain a proper glide path above the MD-80's wake turbulence.Jul 28, 1996 · Substantial damage