Aero Commander 100 accident near San Antonio, Texas, July 23, 2015
On July 23, 2015 at about 1:48 am local time, a 1967 Aero Commander 100, registered N5542M, was substantially damaged in an accident during standing (engine(s) start-up) near San Antonio, Texas (Stinson Municipal Airport). It was a business flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was seriously injured and 1 person had minor injuries. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's improper decision to attempt flight with an unairworthy airplane and improper starting procedure that resulted in an uncontrolled takeoff without the pilot aboard. Contributing was the inoperative airplane battery/engine starter.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 23, 2015 · about 1:48 am local time
- Place
- San Antonio, Texas · Stinson Municipal Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was seriously injured and 1 person had minor injuries.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Aero Commander 100, built 1967 · all 100s on the register
- Registration
- N5542M · no longer on the register · serial 104
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Business flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot attempted to start the airplane engine by hand propping it because the engine could not be started using the starter because the battery was dead. The airplane had a chock under the left main landing gear wheel, and the pilot side door was propped open with a passenger aboard for the engine start. Upon engine start, the airplane jumped the chock and began to accelerate along the ground. The pilot ran along side of the airplane attempting to open the pilot side door, which had closed. When the airplane speed became too fast for the pilot to run alongside of the airplane, he stood on the main landing gear, holding the strut, and continued to attempt entry into the airplane while telling the passenger to pull the brake, throttle, mixture, or turn off the ignition key switch. The airplane impacted a 10-inch barrier, knocking the pilots legs off the main landing gear, and the airplane ran over the pilot's leg. The pilot pulled up onto the wing strut, still giving instruction to the passenger while attempting to enter the pilot side door, but the prop-wash was making this "feat impossible". About 59 mph, the airplane departed the airfield, becoming airborne, and at 6 feet above ground level, the pilot let go of the wing strut and fell to the ground. The airplane climbed, nosed forward, touched down on the nose landing gear, and impacted a construction dirt pilot before it nosed-over. The airplane sustained substantial damage that included damage to each wing spar and a bent empennage. The pilot sustained minor injuries, and the passenger sustained serious injuries. The airplane was not equipped with shoulder harnesses and was not required to be equipped with shoulder harnesses. The pilot's experience in hand-propping airplanes and the injuries of the passenger were unknown at the time this report was written.
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
- Aircraft maintenance event during prior to flight
- Loss of control on ground during standing (engine(s) start-up) defining event
- Attempted remediation/recovery during pushback/tow (engine start-up)
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › (general) › Pilot
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Electrical power system › Battery/charger › Inoperative
- Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Equipment/furnishings › Passenger compartment equip › Not installed/available
Pilot
- Certificate: commercial pilot
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 2,806 hours in all; 30 in this make and model; 79 in the last 90 days; 30 in the last 30 days; 2,764 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: April 25, 2014
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: none
- Injury: minor injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 5,000 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 1, 2015
- Maximum gross weight: 2,250 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming O-320 (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: SSF San Antonio TX at 1:48 am
- Destination: 7F7 Clifton TX
- Flight plan: none
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 140° at 10 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 73°F (23°C)
- Altimeter: 29.86 inHg
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
1 document, released by the NTSB on February 3, 2016. 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.
| # | Document | What it is | |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Pilot/operator Aircraft Accident Report, NTSB Form 6120.1 | PDF, 11 pages | View Download |
The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.
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.