The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN23LA014 · Final report

Diamond Aircraft Ind INC DA 62 accident near Dallas, Texas, October 15, 2022

On October 15, 2022 at about 7:48 pm local time, a 2018 Diamond Aircraft Ind INC DA 62, registered N84LT, was substantially damaged in an accident during approach near Dallas, Texas (Dallas Executive Airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

A total loss of airplane electrical power for undetermined reasons, which resulted in a complete loss of engine power to both engines. Contributing was the worn main battery and the incorrectly wired ECU backup batteries.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
October 15, 2022 · about 7:48 pm local time
Place
Dallas, Texas · Dallas Executive Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Diamond Aircraft Ind INC DA 62, built 2018
Registration
N84LT · registry record · serial 62.C003
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

While descending in preparation to fly a visual approach, the pilot lowered the landing gear and contacted the tower controller for landing clearance. During the controller’s response, the pilot reported hearing a “pop” and observed the avionics display screens lose power. A few seconds later, he observed that both engines had lost power. The pilot executed a forced landing on to a road, during which the airplane struck a power line in the descent, and after touchdown, two road signs, which resulted in substantial damage to the right wing. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed that the electronic control unit (ECU) backup batteries were wired incorrectly (parallel versus series) and the in-line fuses for the backup ECU power system for both engines were blown. The incorrect wiring would have resulted in only 12 volts instead of 24 volts being available which would have resulted in a higher current draw and subsequent blown fuses. According to the airplane’s maintenance records, 4 new ECU battery backup batteries were installed during the annual maintenance inspection about 4 months before the accident. The 1,000 hour/12-month Concorde battery capacitance check was also completed, and the battery had 92% capacitance. It is likely that during this maintenance the batteries were incorrectly rewired in parallel. A review of the aircraft maintenance manual showed that it did not provide a procedure to verify the ECU backup batteries were functioning correctly after replacement. The last step in the ECU back-up battery installation was to run engines and verify that the electrical system operated correctly. However, this step does not verify that the ECU backup batteries were installed correctly and were ready to provide power to the ECUs. In addition, there was no ECU backup battery operational test. If there had been such a test, the improperly connected batteries would have been discovered immediately after replacement. Completing this check on a routine basis would determine if the in-line fuse has blown. Furthermore, the pilot did not have the ability to check for the proper functioning of the ECU batteries before every flight during the before-takeoff checklist. The airplane manufacturer does complete a test of the ECU back-up batteries as part of the production process. Per the airplane’s maintenance records, the main battery was a serviceable one that was installed while maintenance waited for a new battery that was on order. The battery had been installed 23 days before the accident. The airplane had flown about 15 hours from the time the serviceable battery was installed to the accident. The main battery capacitance was tested and found to be 11.04 Amperes-hours (Ah) or 81.2% of rated capacity. The battery capacitance requirement was 85% or better. The loss of main battery power most likely occurred during the landing gear extension when the hydraulic pump turned on, and simultaneous with the radio transmissions. However, during the aircraft and component testing a definitive root cause of the initial power failure could not be determined. Testing could not duplicate the conditions of the flight when the electrical system anomaly occurred or the anomaly itself. With the ECU backup batteries and the alternator relays wired incorrectly, there was no back-up power to the ECU, which resulted in the complete loss of power to both engines and the inability for the engines to restart. While multiple anomalies with the wiring and battery system were documented, a definitive root cause of the initial power failure could not be determined. An electrical system anomaly caused the aircraft electrical system to shutdown and subsequent engine shutdown due to the mis-connected ECU back-up batteries. The testing done could not duplicate the actual conditions of the flight when the electrical system anomaly occurred or the anomaly itself.

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. Electrical system malf/failure during approach defining event
  2. Loss of engine power (total) during approach
  3. Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
  4. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing
  5. Unknown or undetermined during unknown

The NTSB's findings

  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Electrical power system › Battery/charger › Failure
  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Electrical power system › Electrical pwr sys wiring › Incorrect service/maintenance
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › Installation › Maintenance personnel
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Maintenance › Scheduled/routine maintenance › Maintenance personnel
  • Organizational issues › Development › Selection/certification/testing › Document/info verification › Manufacturer

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 905 hours in all; 332 in this make and model; 46 in the last 90 days; 26 in the last 30 days; 818 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: June 6, 2022
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 577 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, June 24, 2022; 54 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 5,071 lb
  • Seats: 7
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: Austro Engines E4P-C (piston); 631 hours total
  • Engine 2: Austro Engines E4P-C (piston); 631 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: SNK Snyder TX at 6:35 pm
  • Destination: RBD Dallas TX
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 13, 7,136 ft by 100 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 180° at 11 knots, gusting 20
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 91°F (33°C), dew point 64°F (18°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.93 inHg
  • Observation at 2:53 pm from KRBD, 3 miles away

Weather report (METAR): KRBD 151953Z 18011G20KT 10SM CLR 33/18 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP125 T03330178 $

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers1

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

14 documents, released by the NTSB on November 26, 2024. 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.

#DocumentWhat it is
1 Pilot/operator Aircraft Accident Report, NTSB Form 6120.1 PDF, 11 pages View Download
2 CEN23LA014 Systems Factual Report PDF, 34 pages View Download
3 CEN23LA014 Systems Factual Report - Attachment 1 PDF, 2 pages View Download
4 CEN23LA014 Systems Factual Report - Attachment 2 PDF, 5 pages View Download
5 CEN23LA014 Systems Factual Report - Attachment 3 PDF, 7 pages View Download
6 Electronic Devices - Specialist's Factual Report PDF, 17 pages View Download
7 Attchment 1 to Electronic Recorder Devices - Specialist's Factual REPORT_CEN23LA014_TABULAR Data data file Download
8 Attchment 2 to Electronic Recorder Devices - Specialist's Factual REPORT_CEN23LA014_TABULAR Data data file Download
9 Attchment 3 to Electronic Recorder Devices - Specialist's Factual REPORT_CEN23LA014_TABULAR Data data file Download
10 Mx Log - Excerpt of Last Annual Inspection and Main Battery Replacement PDF, 1 page View Download
11 ADS-B - Google Earth View map file Download
12 ADS-B - Raw Data data file Download
13 Photos of Airplane PDF, 3 pages View Download
14 Release of Aircraft Wreckage, NTSB Form 6120.15 PDF, 1 page 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.