Cessna 182G accident near Portland, Oregon, July 28, 1996
On July 28, 1996 at about 2:27 am local time, a Cessna 182G, registered N3135S, was substantially damaged in an accident near Portland, Oregon (Portland Intl airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 2 people had minor injuries. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's failure to maintain a proper glide path above the MD-80's wake turbulence.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- July 28, 1996 · about 2:27 am local time
- Place
- Portland, Oregon · Portland Intl · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 2 people had minor injuries.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 182G · all 182Gs on the register
- Registration
- N3135S · registry record · serial 18255635
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The tower controller instructed the Cessna 182 pilot to expedite his visual flight rules (VFR) approach and follow an MD-80 airliner on straight-in final. The Cessna pilot reported the MD-80 in sight (at 2.3 to 3.6 nautical miles) and complied with the instructions. The Cessna encountered the MD-80's wake turbulence about 200 feet above ground level on final; the pilot lost control and the aircraft crashed. Radar data showed that the Cessna closed to approximately 0.9 miles behind the MD-80, and descended 200 feet below the MD-80's glide path (contrary to wake turbulence avoidance guidance in the FAA's Aeronautical Information Manual [AIM]). A 4-mile minimum separation distance would have been required for radar separation, but no minimum distance was required for visual separation. The AIM states that controllers are required to apply minimum landing separation distances for wake turbulence, without distinguishing between visual and radar separation environments. In February 1994, the NTSB issued recommendations to the FAA indicating a belief that VFR aircraft should observe instrument flight rules (IFR) wake turbulence separation distances.
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
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 733 hours in all; 100 in this make and model; 48 in the last 90 days; 36 in the last 30 days; 662 as pilot in command
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (valid medical--w/ waivers/lim.)
- Seat: left
The aircraft
- Last inspection: annual inspection
- Maximum gross weight: 2,800 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Continental O-470-U (piston); 0 hours total
- Fire on the ground
The flight
- Departed from: RDM Redmond OR at 1:00 am
- Destination: PDX
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 28R, 8,000 ft by 150 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 280° at 7 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 90°F (32°C), dew point 63°F (17°C)
- Altimeter: 29.00 inHg
- Observation at 2:56 am from PDX
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket 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.