# Accident 19960728020119A: Cessna 182G, Portland, OR, July 28, 1996

- Type: FAA accident report (Accident/Incident Data System), as reported
- Date: July 28, 1996, 19:27 local time
- Place: Portland, OR
- Airport: Portland International
- Damage: Substantial damage
- Phase of flight: Final Approach
- Operating rules: General operating rules (Part 91)
- Location: 45.5092° N, 122.6902° W: From the FAA, an estimate near the named town, within about 3 miles
- Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=45.5092&lon=-122.6902&mi=10
- Aircraft: N3135S, a cancelled registration (https://openairdocs.org/deregistered/N3135S-2000-08-07) (OpenAirDocs)
- Registry model: Cessna 182G (registry code 2072716, https://openairdocs.org/model/cessna-182g) (OpenAirDocs)
- Reported make and model: CESSNA 182G
- Reported engine: CONT O470U
- Fatal injuries: 0
- Pilot flight hours: 733 total, 100 in this make and model, 48 in the last 90 days
- NTSB investigation: [NTSB SEA96LA173](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/SEA96LA173) (OpenAirDocs)
- FAA source: FAA Aviation Safety Information Portal (https://asip.faa.gov/)
- Page: https://openairdocs.org/incident/19960728020119A

## Narrative

As the FAA filed it, in capitals; the FAA replaces private details with ^PRIVACY DATA OMITTED^.

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.

## The NTSB's investigation of this event (1)

From the NTSB's public API. Aircraft are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported serial number, make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

- [NTSB SEA96LA173](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/SEA96LA173), Jul 28, 1996: Cessna 182G (N3135S), Portland, OR, substantial damage. Probable cause: The pilot's failure to maintain a proper glide path above the MD-80's wake turbulence.

From the FAA Accident/Incident Data System. Reports are matched to registry aircraft 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. For accidents, the NTSB's own investigation is the fuller record.

---
OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.