This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this writing will be corrected when/if the NTSB preliminary report is released.
https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N8287B
- History of Flight:
On August 27, 2026, at about 1200 local time, a Piper PA-18-150 Super Cub, N8287B, sustained minor damage when it overshot the runway during the landing which resulted in damage to the landing gear. The pilot was not injured.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203624/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=N23330
On August 19, 2026, at 1852 eastern daylight time, a Bell Helicopter Textron Canada 407, N873ST, and a Cessna 150H airplane, N23330, collided in flight near Carlisle, Pennsylvania. The two commercial pilots onboard the helicopter were seriously injured, and the helicopter was substantially damaged. The commercial pilot on board the airplane was fatally injured and the airplane was destroyed. The helicopter was operated by the Pennsylvania State Police (PSP) as a public aircraft. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
According to the PSP, the helicopter crew departed from Capital City Airport (CXY), Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, and flew to Carlisle Airport (N94), Carlisle, Pennsylvania, about 15 nautical miles away, to conduct flight instruction training exercises at the airport. ADS-B flight track data obtained from the FAA revealed the helicopter crew flew a straight in approach to runway 28 at N94 and crossed about 50 ft above the runway threshold at 1851. The helicopter then slowly descended and transitioned into a hover taxi about 1,800 ft down the 4,008-ft-long runway before exiting the paved surface to the north over a grass-covered field.
While the helicopter was approaching the airport, ADS-B data showed that the airplane crossed over the airport to the northeast, then made left turns to enter a left crosswind leg to downwind leg of the traffic pattern for runway 28 (figure 1). A witness stated that he heard the airport Common Traffic Advisory Frequency (CTAF) communications between the helicopter flight crew and the airplane pilot; one of the helicopter pilots told the airplane pilot to extend his downwind. The airplane pilot acknowledged the communication.
During a postaccident interview, the flight instructor onboard the helicopter stated that they saw the airplane on the helicopter’s Traffic Alert and Collision Avoidance System first, then saw the airplane while it was on the crosswind leg of the airport traffic pattern. The flight instructor then made a radio call stating the helicopter’s position on final approach. The airplane pilot asked if they wanted him to extend his downwind, and the flight instructor responded, “yes, extend your downwind.” The airplane pilot acknowledged and stated that he was number two for landing.
Airport surveillance video combined with ADS-B flight track data showed that the pilot turned onto the left base leg of the traffic pattern about 2,500 ft from the runway 28 threshold and continued his approach. Shortly after the pilot initiated the left turn onto base leg, ADS-B track data was lost. Airport surveillance video captured the remainder of the flight.
There were three security cameras on the airport that captured the aircraft immediately before and during (figure 2) the approach of both aircraft. Timestamped airport security camera footage showed the helicopter on short final approach to runway 28. The helicopter crossed over the runway threshold while the airplane was on the left base leg. About 30 seconds later, the airplane crossed over the threshold as the helicopter was still over the runway. The airplane’s wings rocked to the left and right as the airplane flew low over the runway surface, and it appeared to make several lateral and vertical movements as it flew over the runway with the flaps extended. The airplane did not touch down on the runway. As the airplane approached the helicopter, the helicopter hovered off the runway and transitioned over the grass field, with its nose still oriented toward the departure end of runway 28 and parallel to the runway. The helicopter pilots stated that due to the helicopter’s position and orientation relative to the runway, they were unable to observe the approaching airplane, which was behind them.
The airplane continued to fly along the runway with the wings rocking before it pitched up and began climbing. After the airplane reached the apex of its climb, about 1 1/2 wingspans above the runway, the right wing dropped and the airplane immediately turned right and descended towards the northwest. The helicopter was in a hover about 50 ft north of the runway when the approaching airplane’s wings rolled level, before it rapidly pitched up, and collided with the rear of the helicopter, striking the tail rotor and main rotor blades. About 8 seconds elapsed from the time the helicopter exited the runway surface until the collision.
The following four still video images (figure 3) from two of the airport security cameras show the time, locations, orientation of the aircraft and their relative position to each other.
Following the collision, the helicopter’s main rotor blades and tail boom separated. The main wreckage of the helicopter, consisting of the entirety of the fuselage, cockpit, engine, and transmission remained relatively intact and fell onto its left side before coming to rest.
During the collision, the airplane separated into four major sections; the engine compartment, wings, empennage, and lower fuselage were spread over a distance of about 250 ft along a magnetic heading of about 330°. Additional parts of the airplane were significantly fragmented and spread throughout the area in a fanlike pattern.
All major portions of the helicopter and the airplane were accounted for at the accident site and recovered. Damage signatures to both aircraft including paint transfer marks, and cuts to the fuselages were indicative of a collision. Postaccident examination of both aircraft revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. During the onsite examination of the airplane, the flaps actuators were observed to be in the retracted position.
The wreckage of both aircraft, along with avionics capable of recording digital data were recovered and retained for further examination.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203564/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=N180DT
On August 10, 2026, about 12:55 Pacific daylight time, a Cessna 180, N180DT, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near La Center, Washington. The flight instructor and pilot receiving instruction were seriously injured. The flight was being operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight.
According to preliminary ADS-B, the airplane departed from runway 31 at Daybreak (WA46), La Center, Washington, about 1250, turned to the northwest, and climbed to 1,025 ft above ground level (agl). At 1251, the airplane made a turn to the east, and continued its climb to 2,200 ft. As the airplane passed the departure end of runway 31, it began a descent and about .5 mile eastsoutheast of WA46, the airplane made a left turn to the north. 1 mile northeast of WA46, at about 1,200 ft agl, the airplane made a descending 180° turn to the left, and flew southbound, approximately parallel with runway 13/31 at WA46, and about .45 mile from runway 13/31. About .40 mile east of the approach end of runway 31, about 250 ft agl, the airplane began a right turn and continued its descent until the end of the available flight track data. The last recorded data point was at 1255, about .23 mile southeast of the approach end of runway 31. (See figure 1)
According to a witness who was positioned to the east of WA46, he observed the airplane shortly before the accident. He observed the airplane as it made the northbound turn, east of WA46, and then again as it flew southbound and began its turn toward the runway. He stated that as it was approaching, the engine sounded like it “backfired, as if the pilot was throttling back for landing”, and that otherwise, the airplane looked and sounded like most other airplanes he observes.
According to a family friend, the flight instructor stated to him that “they had been doing some practicing at Daybreak and that the engine lost power, they came up short and they had to put it in the trees.” The friend stated that the pilot had disclosed additional detail to him but did not share it with NTSB.
Due to ongoing medical circumstances at the time of this report, the NTSB has not received a statement of events from either pilot.
The airplane came to rest inverted, about 380 ft southeast of WA46. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to both wings, the vertical stabilizer, and the fuselage.
The wreckage was retained for further examination.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203611/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N673BK
On August 14, 2026, about 1040 eastern daylight time, an experimental amateur-built Zenith Cruzer, N673BK, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Chatham, Massachusetts. The pilot and the pilot-rated passenger received minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight test.
According to the pilot and the owner/builder of the airplane, the accident flight was the airplane’s fourth during its phase one testing. The previous three flights were uneventful except for oil temperature anomalies. The owner/builder had adjusted the oil cooler position and the purpose of the accident flight was to verify whether repositioning the oil cooler improved the engine oil temperature readings.
The pilot stated that the accident flight was delayed a short time until wind conditions improved. After observing other aircraft operating in the airport traffic pattern, the pilot and the owner/builder decided to proceed with the flight. The preflight inspection, engine runup, and flight control checks were normal. Shortly after takeoff, the pilot reported that the left wing dipped, followed by the right wing, and that the airplane subsequently rocked laterally from side to side. The pilot announced to the owner/builder there was a problem and decided to land the airplane on the remaining runway. Video surveillance footage from the airport showed that the airplane impacted the runway in a left wing down attitude, after which the main landing gear collapsed and the nosewheel separated from the fuselage.
The wreckage was retained for further examination.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203560/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/aircraftinquiry/Search/NNumberResult?NNumberTxt=N8791E
On August 6, 2026, about 1355 eastern daylight time, a Piper Aircraft PA-32-260 airplane, N8791E, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Pinetown, North Carolina. The private pilot and two passengers sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
According to the pilot, after departing Martin County Airport (MCZ), Williamston, North Carolina, enroute to Ocracoke Island Airport (W95), Ocracoke, North Carolina, he climbed to and leveled at 3,000 ft mean sea level. About 10 minutes after establishing cruise flight, the engine experienced a total loss of power.
The pilot established the airplane's best-glide airspeed, transmitted a mayday call, and attempted to restart the engine. Unable to restore engine power, he selected a logging path within a wooded area for a forced landing. During the landing rollout, the airplane's left wing struck a tree. The airplane subsequently impacted another tree and came to rest in a ditch, resulting in substantial damage to the wings and fuselage.
The wreckage was recovered to a secure facility for further examination.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203284/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N1406
On June 30, 2026, at about 1030 eastern daylight time, an experimental Sonerai 2 airplane, N1406, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Cynthiana, Kentucky. The pilot was not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight.
The pilot reported that the purpose of the flight was to perform local air work in the traffic pattern. There were no anomalies noted during the preflight inspection, engine run-up, or subsequent takeoff. The airplane departed with 10 gallons of fuel. About 25 minutes into the flight, after completing two touch-and-go-landings, the airplane experienced a total loss of engine power while transitioning to the crosswind leg of the traffic pattern. The pilot was unable to restore engine power and performed a forced landing to a field west of the airport. During the landing roll, the landing gear separated and the fuselage impacted the ground resulting in substantial damage to the fuselage.
Following the landing, the airplane’s lithium battery caught fire and consumed most of the fuselage.
The wreckage was retained for further examination.
https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/203658/pdf
https://registry.faa.gov/AircraftInquiry/Search/NNumberResult?nNumberTxt=N3866Q
On August 18, 2026 at 1100 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172L, N3866Q, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Micanopy, Florida. The flight instructor and student pilot were uninjured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight.
The flight instructor reported that during the power recovery to a power off stall the student pilot was having trouble pushing the throttle back in during the recovery portion of the procedure. The flight instructor attempted to demonstrate the maneuver and when he attempted the power on recovery the movement of the throttle did not increase the engine power. When the throttle was pushed in it would forcibly push back out on its own. They ran through their checklist as they attempted to return to the runway. The engine continued to run at idle speed as they made a force landing to a dry lakebed. During the landing rollout the nose wheel traveled into a marshy area and the airplane nosed over. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the wings.
An inspection of the throttle control system is pending.