The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ANC13LA021 · Final report

Cessna 172N accident near Kalskag, Alaska, February 5, 2013

On February 5, 2013 at about 8:12 pm local time, a Cessna 172N, registered N5290J, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Kalskag, Alaska (Kalskag airport). It was a business flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was seriously injured and 2 people had minor injuries. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot’s decision to take off into deteriorating weather conditions, which resulted in a loss of visual reference and the subsequent controlled flight into terrain. Contributing to the severity of the rear seat passenger’s injuries was the incorrect installation of the rear seat belts.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made November 2, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
February 5, 2013 · about 8:12 pm local time · cases in 2013
Place
Kalskag, Alaska · Kalskag · cases near this airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was seriously injured and 2 people had minor injuries.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Cessna 172N · all 172Ns on the register
Registration
N5290J · no longer on the register · serial 17273756
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Business flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The noninstrument-rated private pilot was departing on the second leg of a cross-country flight to pick up passengers from an outlying airport and return them to their home airport. The pilot said that, on the inbound flight, the weather reporting station at the destination airport was reporting visual flight rules conditions with 10 statute miles (sm) visibility, but that, as he approached the airport, the visibility had reduced to about 2 sm. After landing and then loading the passengers, the flight took off. He reported that he climbed the airplane to about 300 feet above the ground and that he could still see the river adjacent to the airport but that was all he could remember until impact. The airplane came to rest inverted on the frozen river. One witness and one of the passengers stated that the weather had been deteriorating. The witness stated that, around the time of the airplane's departure, the visibility was poor in snow and fog. The rear seat passenger was ejected from the airplane during the accident sequence. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the right, rear seat belt floor attachment had separated from its track. Examination of the rear seat belts revealed that the belts had not been installed in accordance with the supplemental type certificate (STC) for the rear seat. The improper installation of the right, rear seat belt allowed it to fully separate from the floor attachment point and the seat during the accident. Since the accident, the manufacturer holding the STC has issued a mandatory service bulletin to inspect and correct any improperly installed components.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. VFR encounter with IMC during initial climb
  2. Controlled flight into terrain or object (CFIT) during enroute (cruise) defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Below VFR minima › Contributed to outcome
  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › Installation › Maintenance personnel
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft structures › Fuselage › Seat/cargo attach fitting › Incorrect service/maintenance other cases naming the airframe structure

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 2,823 hours in all; 2,303 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: June 4, 2011
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: minor injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 9,023 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, July 26, 2012; 200 hours since
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-360 SERIES (piston); 1,363 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: Kalskag AK at 8:30 pm
  • Destination: PFAK Aniak AK
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 06, 3,172 ft by 75 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: at 3 knots
  • Visibility: 0.2 statute miles
  • Sky: broken clouds at 300 ft
  • Temperature: 16°F (-9°C), dew point 12°F (-11°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.54 inHg
  • Observation at 8:14 pm from PALG

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers11

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

3 documents, released by the NTSB on January 21, 2015. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

Connections how this case links to the rest of the register

Aircraft
Place

The whole map of how records connect · these connections as data: /graph/accident/ANC13LA021.json.

The bigger picture in Aviation Analytics: accidents over time since 1982, by model, by phase of flight and conditions, by place and on the map.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text does not name anyone involved, its policy at this time. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.