FLIGHT FINDINGSAVIATION OCCURRENCE MAP
Back to map

CEN14LA036 · Cessna 182L

2 Nov 2013 · Superior, WI, United States

Cessna 182L and Cessna 185F · Accident: midair collision en route

Report a problem

Event

NTSB case
CEN14LA036
Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
Accident
InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
Completed
API-reported fatalities
0 · all aircraft and ground
Ground fatalities
Unknown
OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
General aviation
WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
Visual Meteorological Cond

Aircraft 1 · Cessna 182L

Aircraft type
Cessna 182
Category
Airplane
RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
N70520
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Richard I Bong Memorial Airport (SUW), Superior, WITo Richard I Bong Memorial Airport (SUW), Superior, WI
Aircraft age
About 45 years (built 1968)
Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
Part 91: General Aviation
Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
En route · cruise
Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
Midair collision
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Destroyed

Aircraft 2 · Cessna 185F

Aircraft type
Cessna 185
Category
Airplane
RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
N94059
Onboard fatalities
Unknown
Route
From Richard I Bong Memorial Airport (SUW), Superior, WITo Richard I Bong Memorial Airport (SUW), Superior, WI
Aircraft age
About 36 years (built 1977)
Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
Part 91: General Aviation
Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
En route · cruise
Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
Midair collision
DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
Substantial

Cause areas

  • Personnel issues › Action/decision

Approximate · Coordinates from the NTSB case API, which marks them as estimated or does not say; no uncertainty radius is established.

NTSB narrative

A Cessna 182L (182), the lead airplane, and a Cessna 185F (185), the trail airplane, collided during a formation skydiving flight. Both pilots flew the airplanes in a rectangular pattern until they reached the jump altitude of 12,700 ft mean sea level. The 182 pilot established a jump heading and visually confirmed that the 185 was to the left side and aft of the 182. The 182 pilot then called out "door open" and jumpers "climbing out." Subsequently, the four skydivers on board the 182 climbed out onto the airplane's right wing strut and right wheel step. Almost immediately, the 182 was struck by the 185. The 182's windshield was shattered, and the airplane entered an uncontrollable descent. During the descent, the right wing separated from the airplane, and the right wing fuel tank exploded. The 182 pilot exited the airplane and parachuted safely to the ground. The 185 pilot reported that "when it was time for the skydivers to climb out, the two planes began to drift together and in seemingly no time at all, the two were colliding." After the collision, the skydivers on board the 185 jumped from the airplane as it inverted; the pilot was able to recover the airplane and land.

During postaccident interviews, the pilots of both airplanes and the operator's chief pilot reported that, before the flight, they briefed that the trail airplane would be positioned on the left side of the lead airplane. However, each of the three pilots differently described the expected lateral and vertical separation between the trail airplane and the lead airplane. The 182 pilot described the trail position as 20 to 30 ft aft of the lead airplane on a 45-degree bearing and lower than the lead airplane. The 185 pilot described the trail position as one to two airplane lengths (about 26 to 52 ft) aft and left of the lead airplane and at the same altitude as the lead airplane. The chief pilot described the trail position as three airplane lengths (about 78 ft) aft and left of the lead airplane and slightly lower than the lead airplane. Even though none of the pilots stated that the trail airplane should be flown higher than the lead airplane, a video taken of the flight showed that the trail airplane pilot flew the trail airplane higher than the lead airplane until impact.

The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) does not provide any guidance to pilots on how to fly skydiving formation flights nor does it require skydiving operators to provide skydiving pilot training or skydiving formation pilot training. The skydiving operator did not provide its pilots skydiving formation flight training, and it did not keep records of pilot training nor was it required to do so by the FAA. The United States Parachute Association published an article titled, "Formation Flying 101: A Guide for Jump Pilots" that provided guidelines for skydiving formation flights, including, in part, that the trail airplane should be within 100 ft of the lead airplane; however, it did not specify that the trail airplane should be lower than the lead airplane. The article did state that altitude separation is the No. 1 way to avoid a collision and that the trail airplane pilot has only one thing to do–hold position relative to the lead aircraft and never lose sight of it. It is essential that pilots flying skydiving operation formation flights have adequate training to conduct the flights properly and ensure the safety of their passengers. If both pilots had received adequate skydiving formation flight training, they might have had a consensus about how the formation flight should have been flown. If the trail airplane pilot had received such training, he might have been more vigilant about maintaining adequate lateral and vertical separation from the lead airplane during the flight.

Probable cause

The failure of the pilot who was flying the trail airplane to maintain separation from the lead airplane. Contributing to the accident was the inadequate pilot training for formation skydiving operations.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset

Sources

NTSB record CEN14LA036
Event ID
20131104X94753
Case number
CEN14LA036
Dataset
full-current
Source SHA-256
5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Source notes (4)
  • Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
  • Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: investigation status, coordinates. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
  • The date is the local date, which is the same as the UTC date the NTSB stores.
  • API snapshot SHA-256: 7ef88054ed9cb6a9bd12eaba0d194096c6db381ea189c5955e53c145f39b586b; retrieved 2026-09-13T18:22:45.919Z.