The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA18TA236 · Final report

Cessna 182 accident near Hanson, Massachusetts, August 27, 2018

On August 27, 2018 at about 4:50 pm local time, a 1968 Cessna 182, registered N3115R, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (landing roll) near Hanson, Massachusetts (Cranland airport). It was a skydiving flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 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 attain the proper touchdown point, which resulted in a runway overrun. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to land with a quartering tailwind.

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

What the record shows

Date
August 27, 2018 · about 4:50 pm local time
Place
Hanson, Massachusetts · Cranland · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 182 L, built 1968 · all 182s on the register
Registration
N3115R · no longer on the register · serial 18258515
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Skydiving flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The commercial pilot reported that during the airplane's initial climb for the local skydiving flight, the radio stopped working. He continued climbing to 7,500 ft to allow skydivers to depart the airplane, noted that the engine was running roughly at that time, then circled down over the airport. The pilot reported that his approach was "a little faster and higher than normal" and that he landed longer than usual but chose not to execute a go-around because of the rough-running engine. Surveillance video and witnesses indicated that the airplane touched down near the midpoint of the 1,760-ft-long runway with a quartering tailwind. The airplane's tires left over 500 ft of skid marks before the airplane overran the departure end of the runway, encountered a ditch, nosed over, and came to rest inverted 183 ft beyond the departure end of the runway. Postaccident testing of the brakes showed that they were operational and did not reveal evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. In addition, postaccident examination of the engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal engine operation, except that the alternator belt was found off of its pulleys. However, the airplane's battery still indicated a normal voltage, and the airplane's flaps were found extended, indicating that the airplane's electrical system was still functional throughout the landing attempt. Despite the condition of the alternator belt, the airplane's engine never ceased producing power. The pilot should have been able to perform a normal landing but instead performed a faster and higher approach than normal and failed to attain the proper touchdown point.

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. Landing area overshoot during landing
  2. Runway excursion during landing (landing roll) defining event
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)
  4. Nose over/nose down during landing

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Descent/approach/glide path › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
  • factor Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Effect on operation
  • Environmental issues › Physical environment › Terrain › (general) › Contributed to outcome

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 703 hours in all; 392.2 in this make and model; 242.5 in the last 90 days; 47 in the last 30 days; 572.7 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: December 1, 2017
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 6,167.5 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, October 12, 2017; 69 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 3,525 lb
  • Seats: 1
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Continental O-470-U-50 (piston); 6,236 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: 28M Hanson MA at 4:36 pm
  • Destination: 28M Hanson MA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 18, 1,760 ft by 60 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: at 5 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: a few clouds at 4,400 ft
  • Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 66°F (19°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.04 inHg
  • Observation at 4:52 pm from PYM, 8 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

9 documents, released by the NTSB on November 1, 2018. 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.