Ayres Corporation S2R accident near Stanwood, Michigan, June 20, 2024
On June 20, 2024 at about 11:06 am local time, a 1978 Ayres Corporation S2R, registered N4004K, was substantially damaged in an accident during maneuvering (low-alt flying) near Stanwood, Michigan. 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 pilot’s failure to maintain terrain clearance during a low-level aerial application flight, which resulted in impact with terrain and a subsequent forced landing. Contributing to the accident was the location of the spray boom pressure gauge, which required the pilot to divert his attention away from the airplane’s flight path, and the operator’s decision to locate the spray boom pressure gauge outside of the cockpit.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 20, 2024 · about 11:06 am local time
- Place
- Stanwood, Michigan · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Ayres Corporation S2R 600, built 1978 · all S2Rs on the register
- Registration
- N4004K · registry record · serial 2488R
- 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 was performing a low-level aerial application flight when he momentarily and partially turned his head and body to the left to view the spray boom pressure gauge, which was located on the left spray boom. Shortly after viewing the spray boom pressure gauge, the main landing gear impacted terrain. The pilot immediately pulled up, then performed a forced landing to a flat grass field. The pilot performed an emergency shutdown and egressed the airplane without further incident. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. The pilot reported that, in order to view the spray boom pressure gauge, he needed to look to the left and down, to about an 8 o’clock position. The pilot reported that it takes one to two seconds to view the readings accurately on the analog gauge due to the distance from the spray boom pressure gauge to the cockpit, which he estimated as about 8 ft. The pilot classified the location of the spray boom pressure gauge as a “bad design.” All the operator’s airplanes were equipped with a pressure gauge mounted on the left side spray boom, which was the only source of spray boom pressure information. The operator reported that the pressure gauges are located on the spray booms because that location provided the most reliable reading. It is likely that the pilot, while his head and body were turned to the left to view the spray boom pressure gauge, inadvertently allowed the airplane to descend and impact terrain. If the spray boom pressure was located inside the cockpit on the instrument panel, the pilot would not need to look outside of the airplane, thus diverting his attention during low-level operations. A similar accident occurred about 21 years prior, during which an airplane impacted wires after the pilot looked down to view the spray boom pressure gauge. Research indicated that some aerial application airplanes are equipped with spray boom pressure gauges inside the cockpit, or otherwise in the pilot’s forward line of sight.
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
- Low altitude operation/event during maneuvering (low-alt flying) defining event
- Miscellaneous/other during maneuvering (low-alt flying)
- Attempted remediation/recovery during maneuvering (low-alt flying)
- Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
- Collision during takeoff/land during landing
- Evacuation during post (impact)
The NTSB's findings
- Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Equipment/furnishings › Agricultural/external load sys › Design
- Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring equip/instruments › Pilot
- Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
- Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring environment › Pilot
- Organizational issues › Development › Design › Equipment design › Operator
- Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Altitude › Not attained/maintained
- Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Indicating/recording systems › (general) › Design
- Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Task monitoring/vigilance › Pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: commercial pilot, private
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; single-engine sea; rotorcraft: helicopter
- Flight time: 990 hours in all; 20 in this make and model
- Last flight review: June 13, 2023
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: sngl
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 20,961.7 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, April 1, 2024; 15.7 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 6,000 lb
- Seats: 1
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Honeywell TPE331-1-151 (turboprop); 14,504 hours total
- Operator: Heritage AG LLC
The flight
- Departed from: 13C Lakeview MI at 10:00 am
- Flight plan: none
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 090° at 5 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: overcast at 700 ft
- Temperature: 70°F (21°C), dew point 68°F (20°C)
- Altimeter: 30.30 inHg
- Observation at 6:55 am from KRQB, 10 miles away
Weather report (METAR): KRQB 201055Z AUTO 09005KT 10SM OVC007 21/20 A3030 RMK AO2 T02140200
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
Photographs from the investigation 9 pictures from the NTSB's docket, as the NTSB released them
Photograph 1 – View of the right side of the airplane at the accident site
Photograph 2 – View of the left side of the airplane at the accident site
Photograph 3 – View of the front of the airplane at the accident site
Photograph 4 – View of the rear of the airplane at the accident site
Photograph 5 – View of the substantial damage sustained to the right side of the lower fuselage
Photograph 6 – View of the substantial damage sustained to the left side of the lower fuselage
Photograph 7 – View of the substantial damage sustained to the underside of the right wing
Photograph 8 – View of the substantial damage sustained to the underside of the left wing
Photograph 9 – View of the fuselage with both wings, the landing gear, and the empennage removedThe NTSB's photographs with the NTSB's captions, at screen size. Open a picture to see it full size or to report one that should not be shown.
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
14 documents, released by the NTSB on April 24, 2025. 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.
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.
