Diamond DA20 and Piper PA28R accident near Sebring, Florida, September 29, 2018
On September 29, 2018 at about 4:40 pm local time, 2 aircraft, Diamond DA20 (N397JA) and Piper PA28R (N3907T), were involved in the same accident near Sebring, Florida (Sebring Regional Airport). 1 person had minor injuries; 3 others were unhurt. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The inability of the pilot of the Piper and the student pilot and flight instructor of the Diamond to see and avoid the other airplane. Contributing to the collision was the Piper pilot’s failure to use the correct common traffic advisory frequency to announce his airplane's position.
The inability of the pilot of the Piper and the student pilot and flight instructor of the Diamond to see and avoid the other airplane. Contributing to the collision was the Piper pilot’s failure to use the correct common traffic advisory frequency to announce his airplane's position.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- September 29, 2018 · about 4:40 pm local time
- Place
- Sebring, Florida · Sebring Regional Airport · map
- Type
- Accident · collision on the ground
- Injuries
- 1 person had minor injuries; 3 others were unhurt.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft 1
- Diamond DA20 C1, built 2003
- Registration
- N397JA · no longer on the register · serial C0212
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
- Aircraft 2
- Piper PA28R 180, built 1967 · all PA28Rs on the register
- Registration
- N3907T · no longer on the register · serial 28R-30241
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative for the Diamond DA20 final · quoted from the NTSB record
The private pilot of the Piper airplane with a passenger on board was landing while the student pilot of the Diamond airplane with a flight instructor on board was performing touch-and-go landings on an intersecting runway in day visual meteorological conditions. Both airplanes were flying in left traffic patterns for their respective runways at the uncontrolled airport. The pilot of the Piper and the student pilot of the Diamond stated that they announced every leg of the traffic pattern on the airport's published common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The Diamond landed, and just when the student was adding power to initiate a takeoff, the left wing of the Piper, which was landing and flaring just a few feet above the runway, impacted the tail of the Diamond. The flight instructor in the Diamond said he was looking for the Piper after he saw it flying in the vicinity of the airport but that he never saw it in the airport traffic pattern, while the pilot of the Piper did not report seeing the Diamond until just before the collision. Recordings of the airport's CTAF showed that radio calls from the Diamond were heard for every leg of the airport traffic pattern on the published CTAF frequency before the collision, but only two garbled radio calls from the Piper were heard on the published CTAF frequency. Postaccident examination of the Piper's transceiver revealed that it was set to a different frequency. The Piper's transceiver was then set to the correct CTAF frequency, and the communication was clear. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot of the Piper failed to use the correct CTAF frequency when he announced his airplane's position in the airport traffic pattern.
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 Piper PA28R final · quoted from the NTSB record
The private pilot of the Piper airplane with a passenger on board was landing while the student pilot of the Diamond airplane with a flight instructor on board was performing touch-and-go landings on an intersecting runway in day visual meteorological conditions. Both airplanes were flying in left traffic patterns for their respective runways at the uncontrolled airport. The pilot of the Piper and the student pilot of the Diamond stated that they announced every leg of the traffic pattern on the airport's published common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF). The Diamond landed, and just when the student was adding power to initiate a takeoff, the left wing of the Piper, which was landing and flaring just a few feet above the runway, impacted the tail of the Diamond. The flight instructor in the Diamond said he was looking for the Piper after he saw it flying in the vicinity of the airport but that he never saw it in the airport traffic pattern, while the pilot of the Piper did not report seeing the Diamond until just before the collision. Recordings of the airport's CTAF showed that radio calls from the Diamond were heard for every leg of the airport traffic pattern on the published CTAF frequency before the collision, but only two garbled radio calls from the Piper were heard on the published CTAF frequency. Postaccident examination of the Piper's transceiver revealed that it was set to a different frequency. The Piper's transceiver was then set to the correct CTAF frequency, and the communication was clear. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot of the Piper failed to use the correct CTAF frequency when he announced his airplane's position in the airport traffic pattern.
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 Diamond DA20 from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Collision during takeoff/land during landing defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Pilot of other aircraft
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Student/instructed pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Instructor/check pilot
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Communications system › VHF communication system › Incorrect use/operation
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Pilot of other aircraft
Dual student
- Certificate: student
- Flight time: 40 hours in all; 35 in this make and model; 8 in the last 90 days; 7 in the last 30 days
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: minor injuries
Flight instructor
- Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 698 hours in all; 40 in this make and model; 467 as pilot in command; 50 on instruments
- Last flight review: June 6, 2018
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 2,776.8 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 1, 2018
- Maximum gross weight: 1,770 lb
- Seats: 2
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Continental IO-240-B32B (piston); 438 hours total
- Operator: Aamro Aviation Corporation
The flight
- Departed from: SEF Sebring FL at 4:35 pm
- Destination: SEF Sebring FL
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 14, 4,990 ft by 100 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 100° at 5 knots
- Sky: scat at 3,600 ft
- Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 73°F (23°C)
- Altimeter: 30.09 inHg
- Observation at 4:35 pm from SEF
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | 1 |
The factual record for the Piper PA28R from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- Collision during takeoff/land during landing (flare/touchdown) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Student/instructed pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › Monitoring other aircraft › Instructor/check pilot
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Communications system › VHF communication system › Incorrect use/operation
- factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 1,323 hours in all; 1,173 in this make and model; 13 in the last 90 days; 3 in the last 30 days; 1,246 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: November 1, 2017
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 3,817 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 22, 2018; 12 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 2,500 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Lycoming IO-360-B1E (piston); 3,817 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: TPF Tampa FL at 2:15 pm
- Destination: SEF Sebring FL
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 19, 5,234 ft by 100 ft
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The NTSB has not released the docket for this case yet. The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), is usually released when the investigation is nearly complete, and the list here is refreshed when it appears. Check 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.