The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR17LA160 · Final report

Cessna 182L accident near Arbuckle, California, July 22, 2017

On July 22, 2017 at about 3:45 pm local time, a 1968 Cessna 182L, registered N42143, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff (rejected takeoff) near Arbuckle, California (Private airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot’s delayed decision to abort the takeoff and his failure to properly conduct a rejected takeoff, which resulted in a runway overrun.

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

What the record shows

Date
July 22, 2017 · about 3:45 pm local time
Place
Arbuckle, California · Private · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 182L, built 1968 · all 182Ls on the register
Registration
N42143 · no longer on the register · serial 18258872
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The private pilot reported that, during takeoff from the 2,500-ft grass- and dirt-covered runway, the airplane lifted off the runway normally, and he flew the airplane at a low altitude to gain airspeed before he pitched the airplane upward to initiate a climb. The pilot stated that the airplane initially climbed before it started to settle toward the runway. The pilot attempted to gain airspeed and began a second rotation to climb but realized that the airplane would be unable to clear the trees at the end of the runway. The pilot aborted the takeoff and landed on the remaining length of the runway. However, the landing flare was late, which caused the airplane to porpoise, resulting in ineffective braking. Subsequently, the airplane overran the departure end of the runway and impacted trees before the airplane came to rest upright within an orchard. Both wings sustained structural damage. Postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of a preexisting mechanical malfunction that would have precluded normal operation. According to the reported weights of the pilot and passenger, the reported fuel load, and the airplane's empty weight, the airplane was within its weight and balance limitations. On the basis of the airplane's performance charts, the airplane would have required about 1,366 ft to clear obstacles and thus should have been able to successfully depart from the private grass/dirt runway. However, when the airplane did not begin to climb after the initial liftoff, the pilot should have rejected the takeoff rather than attempt to climb a second time. The pilot's delayed decision to abort the takeoff resulted in an improper flare, a bounced landing, and a subsequent runway overrun.

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. Attempted remediation/recovery during takeoff (rejected takeoff)
  2. Runway excursion during takeoff (rejected takeoff) defining event
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during takeoff (rejected takeoff)

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Delayed action › Pilot
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Landing flare › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Surface speed/braking › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • cause Environmental issues › Physical environment › Object/animal/substance › Tree(s) › Decision related to condition
  • cause Environmental issues › Physical environment › Object/animal/substance › Tree(s) › Contributed to outcome

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 618 hours in all; 484 in this make and model; 8.6 in the last 90 days; 8 in the last 30 days; 580 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: April 29, 2016
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 6,216 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, February 7, 2017; 16 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,348 lb
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Cont Motor O-470-3 (piston); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: None Arbuckle CA
  • Destination: Colusa CA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway E, 2,500 ft by 50 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 160° at 7 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 73°F (23°C), dew point 55°F (13°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.90 inHg
  • Observation at 3:53 pm from KMYV, 26 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers1

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

5 documents, released by the NTSB on August 9, 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.