Cessna 172RG and Cessna 182Q mid-air collision near El Cajon, California, February 9, 2006
On February 9, 2006, 2 aircraft, Cessna 172RG (N9531B) and Cessna 182Q (N759KE), were involved in a mid-air collision near El Cajon, California. 3 people were killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
Preview. This page is not yet listed for search engines.
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilots of both airplanes failure to maintain an adequate visual lookout due to their relative flight paths, which limited the available visual cues. Factors were the failure of the air traffic controller(s) to issue a conflict alert to the Cessna 172RG after repeated visual and aural warnings of an impending collision and the task load of the certified flight instructor.
The pilots of both airplanes failure to maintain an adequate visual lookout due to their relative flight paths, which limited the available visual cues. Factors were the failure of the air traffic controller(s) to issue a conflict alert to the Cessna 172RG after repeated visual and aural warnings of an impending collision and the task load of the certified flight instructor in the other airplane.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 4, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- February 9, 2006
- Place
- El Cajon, California · map
- Type
- Accident · mid-air collision
- Injuries
- 3 people were killed.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft 1
- Cessna 172RG · all 172RGs on the register
- Registration
- N9531B · registry record · serial 172RG0859
- Damage
- Destroyed
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
- Aircraft 2
- Cessna 182Q · all 182Qs on the register
- Registration
- N759KE · no longer on the register · serial 18266048
- Damage
- Destroyed
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative for the Cessna 172RG final · quoted from the NTSB record
A Cessna 182Q and a Cessna 172RG, were operating in class D airspace and departed from the same airport. The Cessna 172RG was operating under instrument flight rules as an instructional flight (IFR) and receiving radar service from an approach control facility, while the Cessna 182 was operating under visual flight rules (VFR) and had been released from communication with air traffic control. The pilot undergoing instruction in the Cessna 172RG was most likely wearing a view limiting device which tasked the certified flight instructor seated in the right seat to serve as both an instructor and a safety pilot. The Cessna 172RG departed first, performing a right 260-degree turn over the airport and was assigned a southwest heading by the controller. The Cessna 182Q departed to the west and made a left turn, while climbing in a southeasterly direction. The heading assigned to the Cessna 172RG put it on a direct collision course with the Cessna 182Q, with a collision angle of 40 degrees. Following a discussion with the controller about the pilot's intentions upon completion of an approach, the controller instructed the Cessna 172RG to fly heading 190. The pilot read back, "One nine" and no further transmissions were received from the Cessna 172RG. In class D airspace, there is no specified separation requirement between VFR and IFR aircraft. However, controllers still have a responsibility to be vigilant for potential collisions between aircraft under these circumstances. This accident occurred after the controllers in communication with the Cessna 172RG had received a sustained conflict alert involving the Cessna 172RG and Cessna 182Q (operating on a VFR transponder code), but failed to recognize or resolve the conflict. Comparisons of the calculated convergence angles of the two airplanes showed that for an 85th percentile male seated in the left seat (Cessna did not create pilot view angles for pilots seated in the front right seat), the Cessna 172RG pilot was about 15 degrees outside of the right view angle and the Cessna 182Q pilot was within about 6 degrees of the left view angle.
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 Cessna 182Q final · quoted from the NTSB record
A Cessna 182Q and a Cessna 172RG, were operating in class D airspace and departed from the same airport. The Cessna 172RG was operating under instrument flight rules as an instructional flight (IFR) and receiving radar service from an approach control facility, while the Cessna 182 was operating under visual flight rules (VFR) and had been released from communication with air traffic control. The pilot undergoing instruction in the Cessna 172RG was most likely wearing a view limiting device which tasked the certified flight instructor seated in the right seat to serve as both an instructor and a safety pilot. The Cessna 172RG departed first, performing a right 260-degree turn over the airport and was assigned a southwest heading by the controller. The Cessna 182Q departed to the west and made a left turn, while climbing in a southeasterly direction. The heading assigned to the Cessna 172RG put it on a direct collision course with the Cessna 182Q, with a collision angle of 40 degrees. Following a discussion with the controller about the pilot's intentions upon completion of an approach, the controller instructed the Cessna 172RG to fly heading 190. The pilot read back, "One nine" and no further transmissions were received from the Cessna 172RG. In class D airspace, there is no specified separation requirement between VFR and IFR aircraft. However, controllers still have a responsibility to be vigilant for potential collisions between aircraft under these circumstances. This accident occurred after the controllers in communication with the Cessna 172RG had received a sustained conflict alert involving the Cessna 172RG and Cessna 182Q (operating on a VFR transponder code), but failed to recognize or resolve the conflict. Comparisons of the calculated convergence angles of the two airplanes showed that for an 85th percentile male seated in the left seat (Cessna did not create pilot view angles for pilots seated in the front right seat), the Cessna 172RG pilot was about 15 degrees outside of the right view angle and the Cessna 182Q pilot was within about 6 degrees of the left view angle.
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 Cessna 172RG from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- MIDAIR COLLISION during climb - to cruise
- IN FLIGHT COLLISION WITH TERRAIN/WATER during descent - uncontrolled
Flight instructor
- Ratings: multi-engine land, single-engine land, AME, ASE, IAIR, APLN, none
- Flight time: 570 hours in all; 45 in the last 90 days; 27 in the last 30 days; 435 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: January 1, 2006
- Medical certificate: class 1
- Injury: fatal
Other crew
- Ratings: multi-engine land, single-engine land, none, APLN, none
- Flight time: 305 hours in all
- Medical certificate: class 1
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 5,429 hours
- Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, November 1, 2005; 66 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 2,650 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Textron Lycoming O-360-F1A6 (piston); 0 hours total
- Fire on the ground
- Operating certificate: in the vicinity
The flight
- Departed from: KSEE El Cajon CA
- Destination: KSDM Brown Field CA
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 260° at 8 knots
- Visibility: 25 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 20,000 ft
- Temperature: 73°C, dew point 0°C
- Altimeter: 29.93 inHg
- Observation at 11:47 pm from KSEE, 3 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 2 |
The factual record for the Cessna 182Q from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English
What happened, in order
- MIDAIR COLLISION during climb - to cruise
- IN FLIGHT COLLISION WITH TERRAIN/WATER during descent - uncontrolled
Pilot
- Ratings: single-engine land, none, none, none
- Flight time: 322 hours in all; 233 in this make and model; 36 in the last 90 days; 20 in the last 30 days; 145 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: March 1, 2005
- Medical certificate: class 3
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 2,958.9 hours
- Last inspection: type not recorded, February 1, 2006; 3 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 2,950 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Teledyne Continental O-470-U (piston); 0 hours total
- Fire on the ground
- Operating certificate: in the vicinity
The flight
- Departed from: KSEE El Cajon CA
- Destination: KSDM San Diego CA
- Flight plan: none
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 1 |
About this page
Everything above comes from the NTSB's public accident database: the narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words, and the coded tables behind its report (pilot, aircraft, flight, weather, injuries, sequence of events) are written out in plain English. Pilots' ages, home towns and medical details are left out on purpose. The docket at the NTSB holds the report as a PDF and the investigation's photographs and documents. This site never names pilots, passengers or anyone else involved. A preliminary report describes what is known soon after the event and can change; the final report, with the probable cause, usually follows one to two years later and this page is refreshed when it does. Case number LAX06FA106.