NTSB CAROL · Event
Event ERA18TA236
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
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.
Factual narrative
On August 27, 2018, about 1250 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 182L, N3115R, nosed over following a landing overrun at Cranland Airport (28M), Hanson, Massachusetts. The commercial pilot was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed for the local skydiving flight, which originated at 28M and was operated under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91.The pilot reported completing a thorough preflight inspection and runup prior to the accident flight, noting that there were no mechanical malfunctions or failures with the airplane prior to the flight that would have precluded normal operation, and no abnormal indications or battery discharge indications during the runup preceding takeoff. A witness stated that the airplane was jump-started by a vehicle just prior to the accident flight. About 2,000 ft during the initial climb, the airplane experienced a radio failure and the pilot noted a slight change in engine sound. He consulted with the jumpmaster and continued to climb to 7,500 ft to allow the two pairs of skydivers to jump. He reported engine roughness after the jumpers departed the airplane. He considered going to a nearby airport about 8 miles southeast that offered longer runways but did not want to go to an airport that was unfamiliar to him. Instead, he circled down over the airport, keeping his approach "a little faster and higher than normal" so that if the engine lost total power he could still reach the runway. After extending full flaps, he tried to "bleed off speed" and lose altitude as quickly as possible. He landed longer than usual but preferred to not execute a go-around due to the rough-running engine. Despite maximum braking, the airplane overran the departure end of runway 18, encountered a ditch, nosed over, and came to rest inverted. According to the jumpmaster, he noted no engine problems or other anomalies besides the radio failure prior to jumping. Once on the ground, he observed the landing and left main tire smoking from the pilot "locking up the brakes." According to the second jumpmaster, once back on the ground he saw the airplane "arriving fast" and heard the airplane braking before it overran the runway. A review of the airport video revealed that the airplane touched down near the midpoint of the 1,760-ft-long runway. Additionally, a Federal Aviation Administration who responded to 28M shortly after the accident noted a quartering tailwind for the airplane's direction of landing. The recorded wind at an airport located 8 miles southeast of the accident site, about the time of the accident, was variable at 5 knots. The airplane came to rest inverted 183 ft beyond the departure end of runway 18. Examination of the wreckage revealed that the airframe sustained substantial damage to the fuselage, both wings, rudder, and vertical stabilizer. The flaps were in the extended position. The main landing gear tires both displayed significant tread wear on one side with visible holes in the tread area. The runway displayed tire skid marks with geometry consistent to the accident airplane for537 ft. Additionally, rim marks were evident 158 ft after the first contiguous skid marks. Examination of the airplane revealed that the alternator belt was located off the pulleys and on the lower right side of the engine firewall. It was examined, and no anomalies were noted. The battery was disconnected during the accident sequence, with the left post separated at impact. For examination, a replacement battery was wired to the airplane and the flaps operated normally. A multimeter was applied to the accident battery and it indicated 12.3 volts. Except for the alternator belt located off the pully, the engine was examined and no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions were observed. Testing of the brakes showed that they were operational and did not reveal evidence any preimpact mechanical anomalies. 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. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Descent/approach/glide path-Not attained/maintained - C
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
- F Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot - F
- F Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Wind-Tailwind-Effect on operation - F
- — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Terrain-(general)-Contributed to outcome
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2018_ERA18TA236.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper
A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World
Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research)
Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace)
Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes)
Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper
Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗