The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR19FA080 · Final report

Cessna 172 accident near Desert Hot Springs, California, February 6, 2019

On February 6, 2019 at about 2:15 am local time, a 1973 Cessna 172, registered N20556, was destroyed in an accident during enroute near Desert Hot Springs, California. It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 2 people were killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot's inadequate and/or improper preparation for the flight in which he selected an altitude too low to assure terrain clearance and resulted in an impact with terrain in turbulent downdraft conditions.

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

What the record shows

Date
February 6, 2019 · about 2:15 am local time
Place
Desert Hot Springs, California · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
2 people were killed.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172 M, built 1973 · all 172s on the register
Registration
N20556 · no longer on the register · serial 17261391
Damage
Destroyed
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

On the day of the accident, the pilot departed for a cross-country flight with full fuel and landed at another airport about 24 miles to the west about 80 minutes later. The pilot picked up a passenger there and then took off. About 7 minutes after takeoff, the pilot contacted air traffic control (ATC) to acquire visual flight rules flight- following services at a planned en route altitude of 3,500 ft. The pilot advised that he would "follow the road" as his means of navigation. The airplane continued toward the destination and radar data revealed that for the majority of the flight, the airplane remained at an altitude of 3,500 ft. During this period, the groundspeed varied irregularly, ranging from about 95 to 123 knots. At the east end of a mountain pass, the groundspeed had increased to about 135 knots and remained there until the airplane completed a turn north when the airplane began a steady climb of about 600 fpm. The airplane reached a peak altitude of 4,100 ft, and then began a steady descent of about 1,325 fpm where it appeared to momentarily level off at an altitude of 2,775 ft, and radar contact was lost about 9 seconds later. Just prior to the loss of radar contact, the groundspeed decreased irregularly to about 96 knots, and then increased gradually to about 103 knots by the end of the data. Radar contact was reestablished for a short time with the final radar return recorded at an altitude of about 2,800 ft. and depicted the airplane position as about 1,500 ft southeast of the impact location. The airplane impacted a steep mountain face at an elevation of about 2,500 ft while the pilot was attempting to negotiate a north-south mountain pass with peak terrain elevations of about 2,700 ft. On scene information indicated that the airplane impacted in a wings-level attitude with a significant horizontal speed component. Propeller and engine damage indicated that the engine was developing power at the time of impact. Examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any pre-impact mechanical deficiencies or failures that would have precluded continued flight. The investigation was unable to determine if the pilot evaluated the weather prior to his departure. Satellite imagery showed higher terrain obscured by clouds, but the pass and accident location were free of cloud cover. However, the region, particularly that near the accident site, was experiencing high winds, generally out of the west, and significant turbulence. Thus, the airplane was on the leeward side of the slopes, where downdraft activity, with potential speeds over 1,000 fpm, would be expected The airplane’s altitude deviations as it navigated the north/south pass were consistent with the airplane encountering significant up- and downdrafts. The pilot’s selected en route altitude of 3,500 ft was too low for the pass that he was transiting, and physically impossible for the route options beyond, regardless of the wind conditions. There were no cloud ceilings or airspace restrictions that would have prevented the pilot from operating at a higher cruise altitude, which would have provided the necessary terrain clearance. For the last 2 minutes of the flight, the airplane exhibited significant altitude excursions, likely as a result of atmospheric disturbances. During the final minute of the flight, the airplane appears to have been affected by a strong downdraft that the pilot either did not recognize or was unable to counter. The most significant flawed decision was the pilot's selection of the incorrect low en route altitude, which suggested either lack of or inadequate preflight planning. The pilot's improper low altitude choice, combined with the high terrain, strong winds, downdrafts, and limited climb capability of the airplane left little or no margin for ensuring terrain clearance and safe transit through the pass.

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. Preflight or dispatch event during prior to flight
  2. Low altitude operation/event during enroute
  3. Altitude deviation during enroute defining event
  4. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during enroute

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Weather planning › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Flight planning/navigation › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action selection › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Turbulence › Terrain induced turbulence › Effect on operation
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Altitude › Not attained/maintained
  • Environmental issues › Physical environment › Terrain › Mountainous/hilly terrain › Effect on operation

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot, private
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 246 hours in all; 31 in this make and model; 31 in the last 30 days; 81 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: January 7, 2019
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

Passenger

  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 6,954 hours
  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, January 30, 2019; 13 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,299 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: EMT El Monte CA at 1:25 am
  • Destination: VGT Las Vegas NV
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: night, dark
  • Wind: from 030° at 12 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
  • Observation at 1:53 am from psp, 12 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers1

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

32 documents, released by the NTSB on January 12, 2021. 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.

#DocumentWhat it is
1 Weather Study PDF, 28 pages View Download
2 Global Positioning System Device - Specialist's Factual Report PDF, 3 pages View Download
3 GPS Terrain and Xm Information PDF, 2 pages View Download
4 Record of Conversation (Pilot Friend) PDF, 2 pages View Download
5 Record of Conversation (Preflight Witness) PDF, 2 pages View Download
6 Record of Conversation (Fala) PDF, 1 page View Download
7 Destination Weather PDF, 3 pages View Download
8 FAA Communications Summary PDF, 4 pages View Download
9 FAA ATC Communication Transcript PDF, 11 pages View Download
10 Site and On-scene Information PDF, 28 pages View Download
11 Airframe and Engine Examination PDF, 31 pages View Download
12 Fala CFI Statement PDF, 1 page View Download
13 Fala Corona Operational Procedures PDF, 3 pages View Download
14 Fala Fueling Procedures PDF, 3 pages View Download
15 Fala Email Regarding Dispatch PDF, 2 pages View Download
16 Fala Email Regarding Parent Company PDF, 1 page View Download
17 N20556 Dispatch Sheet PDF, 1 page View Download
18 Pilots Florida Training Information PDF, 4 pages View Download
19 Pilot Rental Privileges and Limitations PDF, 2 pages View Download
20 Pilots Flight Time Summary PDF, 1 page View Download
21 Maintenance Records Excerpts PDF, 7 pages View Download
22 N20556 Weight and Balance Information PDF, 5 pages View Download
23 N20556 Rate of Climb Information PDF, 1 page View Download
24 Emt Arrival radar Data data file Download
25 Kemt Arrival Track map file Download
26 Accident Leg radar Data data file Download
27 Altitude and Speed Plots PDF, 2 pages View Download
28 Accident Leg Track map file Download
29 Annotated Flight Track Images PDF, 8 pages View Download
30 Statement of Party Representatives to NTSB Investigation PDF, 2 pages View Download
31 Toxicology Report - Pilot PDF, 1 page View Download
32 Toxicology Report - Passenger PDF, 1 page View Download

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.