The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN23LA228 · Final report

Grumman Acft Eng Cor-Schweizer G-164 accident near Saffell, Arkansas, May 31, 2023

On May 31, 2023 at about 10:30 pm local time, a 1982 Grumman Acft Eng Cor-Schweizer G-164, registered N8405K, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff near Saffell, Arkansas. It was an aerial application (crop spraying) flight under agricultural flying rules (Part 137). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The airplane’s encounter with a dust devil after takeoff, which resulted in a loss of lift, and a subsequent loss of control. Contributing to the accident was the presence of a dust devil in the airplane’s flight path.

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

What the record shows

Date
May 31, 2023 · about 10:30 pm local time
Place
Saffell, Arkansas · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Grumman Acft Eng Cor-Schweizer G-164 B, built 1982 · all G-164s on the register
Registration
N8405K · registry record · serial 688B
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Aerial application (crop spraying) flight · agricultural flying rules (Part 137)

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

The pilot reported that shortly after takeoff on an aerial application flight to apply fertilizer to rice fields in a remote area the airplane unknowingly flew through a dust devil (also called a whirlwind), and subsequently lost lift. The pilot estimated the dust devil was between 8 to 10 ft in diameter and reported no visible debris. The airplane subsequently impacted a dirt ditch, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. The pilot was able to egress from the airplane without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the engine mount, the fuselage, both wings, and the empennage. The operator reported there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airframe or the engine that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot reported that he had encountered several dust devils in earlier flights that day for the operating area. The pilot did not perform a hopper load dump during the accident sequence, as he reported flying the airplane was the priority. A review of the Federal Aviation Administration Aviation (FAA) Weather Handbook (FAA-H-8083-28) and the FAA Aeronautical Information Manual found no detailed information listed about dust devils or the potential hazards of flying through dust devils.

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. Other weather encounter during takeoff
  2. Off-field or emergency landing during landing
  3. Nose over/nose down during landing
  4. Hazardous material leak/spill during post (impact)
  5. Loss of control in flight during takeoff defining event
  6. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing
  7. Evacuation during post (impact)
  8. Attempted remediation/recovery during takeoff

The NTSB's findings

  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Altitude › Attain/maintain not possible
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Dust devil/whirlwind › Effect on equipment
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Dust devil/whirlwind › Ability to respond/compensate
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Dust devil/whirlwind › Contributed to outcome

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 16,038 hours in all; 15,669 in this make and model; 145 in the last 90 days; 115 in the last 30 days; 15,915 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: November 14, 2021
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: sngl
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 12,146 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, January 23, 2023
  • Maximum gross weight: 6,000 lb
  • Seats: 1
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Pratt & Whitney Canada PT6A-34AG (turboprop); 22,000 hours total
  • Operator: Mj Aviation INC

The flight

  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 140° at 6 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: a few clouds at 200 ft
  • Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 61°F (16°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.93 inHg
  • Observation at 4:56 pm from KARG, 3 miles away

Weather report (METAR): KARG 312156Z AUTO 14006KT 10SM FEW002 SCT110 31/16 A2993 RMK AO2 SLP135 T03060161

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

6 documents, released by the NTSB on July 7, 2023. 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.

Other NTSB records under N8405K the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time

1993-05-26FTW93LA167 · accident near Stuttgart, AR · destroyed · no injuries
1988-08-16MKC88LA158 · accident near Humphrey, AR · substantial damage · no injuries

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.