Air Tractor INC AT-802A and Grumman G-164C mid-air collision near Sedgwick, Arkansas, May 23, 2012
On May 23, 2012 at about 3:49 pm local time, 2 aircraft, Air Tractor INC AT-802A (N4126T) and Grumman G-164C (N996QC), were involved in a mid-air collision near Sedgwick, Arkansas. 1 person was killed and 1 person was seriously injured. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The inability of both pilots to see and avoid the other resulting in a midair collision. Contributing to the accident was the distraction of the Air Tractor pilot by his cellular telephone conversation during the flight.
The inability of both pilots to see and avoid the other airplane, which resulted in a midair collision. Contributing to the accident was the distraction of the Air Tractor pilot by a cellular telephone conversation during the flight.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- May 23, 2012 · about 3:49 pm local time
- Place
- Sedgwick, Arkansas · map
- Type
- Accident · mid-air collision
- Injuries
- 1 person was killed and 1 person was seriously injured.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft 1
- Air Tractor INC AT-802A · all AT-802As on the register
- Registration
- N4126T · no longer on the register · serial 802A-0261
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Aerial application (crop spraying) flight · agricultural flying rules (Part 137)
- Aircraft 2
- Grumman G-164C · all G-164Cs on the register
- Registration
- N996QC · registry record · serial 19C
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Aerial application (crop spraying) flight · agricultural flying rules (Part 137)
The NTSB's narrative for the Air Tractor INC AT-802A final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot of the Grumman reported that he approached the field from the northeast with the intention of starting a spray run on the south side of the field, traveling to the southwest. Consistent with local aerial application procedures, the Grumman pilot performed a high-altitude aerial survey of the field he intended to spray before he began his first spray run; he did not observe any other airplanes operating in that area. The Air Tractor pilot departed his private airstrip with the intention of applying herbicide to a rice crop located just south of the field being sprayed by the Grumman, in a north and south application pattern. Global positioning system data recovered from the Air Tractor showed its easterly departure from the private airstrip and flight toward the field intended for application, followed by a left turn and a northerly pass over the field. The pilot of the Grumman stated that he had completed about 50% of his first spray pass when the airplanes collided and that he did not see the Air Tractor before the collision. Postaccident examination of the engine and flight control systems on both airplanes revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have prevented either pilot from maneuvering to avoid an impact. A review of both pilots’ medical records and postaccident medical and pathological examination of the Air Tractor pilot revealed no medical or toxicological issues that would have precluded either pilot from operating his airplane in a safe manner before the accident. Cellular telephone records for the pilot of the Air Tractor indicate that the pilot initiated a telephone conversation with a local farmer (for operational purposes) before his flight and he was still on the telephone with the farmer at the time of the collision. The Air Tractor pilot might have surveyed the area for traffic (in accordance with standard procedures) before he performed his initial pass over the field or scanned the area more actively during his initial pass if he had not been distracted by the telephone call. Based on the airplanes’ flight attitudes and headings at the time of impact, it would have been difficult for either pilot to see the other airplane in time to avoid the collision. In addition, it is likely that the pilot of the Air Tractor was distracted by his telephone conversation.
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 NTSB's narrative for the Grumman G-164C final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot of the Grumman reported that he approached the field from the northeast with the intention of starting a spray run on the south side of the field, traveling to the southwest. Consistent with local aerial application procedures, the Grumman pilot performed a high-altitude aerial survey of the field he intended to spray before he began his first spray run; he did not observe any other airplanes operating in that area. The Air Tractor pilot departed his private airstrip with the intention of applying herbicide to a rice crop located just south of the field being sprayed by the Grumman, in a north and south application pattern. Global positioning system data recovered from the Air Tractor showed its easterly departure from the private airstrip and flight toward the field intended for application, followed by a left turn and a northerly pass over the field. The pilot of the Grumman stated that he had completed about 50% of his first spray pass when the airplanes collided and that he did not see the Air Tractor before the collision. Postaccident examination of the engine and flight control systems on both airplanes revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have prevented either pilot from maneuvering to avoid an impact. A review of both pilots’ medical records and postaccident medical and pathological examination of the Air Tractor pilot revealed no medical or toxicological issues that would have precluded either pilot from operating his airplane in a safe manner before the accident. Cellular telephone records for the pilot of the Air Tractor indicate that the pilot initiated a telephone conversation with a local farmer (for operational purposes) before his flight and he was still on the telephone with the farmer at the time of the collision. The Air Tractor pilot might have surveyed the area for traffic (in accordance with standard procedures) before he performed his initial pass over the field or scanned the area more actively during his initial pass if he had not been distracted by the telephone call. Based on the airplanes’ flight attitudes and headings at the time of impact, it would have been difficult for either pilot to see the other airplane in time to avoid the collision. In addition, it is likely that the pilot of the Air Tractor was distracted by his telephone conversation.
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 for the Air Tractor INC AT-802A from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Midair collision during maneuvering defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Pilot
- Environmental issues › Task environment › (general) › (general) › Effect on operation
- factor Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › (general) › Pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane; rotorcraft: helicopter
- Flight time: 15,800 hours in all; 916 in this make and model; 126 in the last 90 days; 90 in the last 30 days
- Last flight review: September 1, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: sngl
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 3,381 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, April 24, 2012
- Seats: 1
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: P&W Canada PT6A-65AG (turboprop); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: Bono AR at 3:48 pm
- Flight plan: none
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 170° at 8 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 79°F (26°C), dew point 46°F (8°C)
- Altimeter: 29.88 inHg
- Observation at 3:55 pm from KARG, 10 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
The factual record for the Grumman G-164C from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Midair collision during maneuvering defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Pilot
- factor Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › (general) › Pilot of other aircraft
- Environmental issues › Task environment › (general) › (general) › Effect on operation
Pilot
- Certificate: commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane; rotorcraft: helicopter
- Flight time: 17,320 hours in all; 11,668 in this make and model; 173 in the last 90 days; 115 in the last 30 days; 17,320 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: December 2, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: sngl
- Injury: serious injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 4,103 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, March 20, 2012
- Seats: 1
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Garrett TPE331-10 (turboprop); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: Light AR
- Flight plan: none
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.
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 never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.