DCA18IA269 · DJI Phantom 4
DJI Phantom 4 · Incident: loss of control in flight during landing
From Blacksburg, VA to Blacksburg, VA
Event
- NTSB case
- DCA18IA269
- 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
- Incident
- 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
- Unknown
- 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
DJI Phantom 4
- Aircraft type
- DJI PHANTOM
- Category
- Helicopter
- 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
- FA3HCWCR4X
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Blacksburg, VATo Blacksburg, VA
- Aircraft age
- Not recorded
- 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 107: Small UAS
- 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
- Landing
- 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
- Loss of control in flight
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Minor
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
The sUAS was operating under the provisions of Part 107 within Class G airspace. The pilot was appropriately certificated for the flight.
Examination of the drone data logs revealed no anomalies with the aircraft or software. The drone responded to control inputs as expected. The pilot erroneously believed that the "down and in" CSC input would result in a landing or in-flight shutdown of the motors. The Phantom 4 user manual specifies that the "down and in" CSC shuts down the motors only when the drone is on the ground. Inputting that command in flight would result in the drone yawing right, pitching backward, and banking left. Logs indicated that the drone maneuvered consistently with the stick inputs. Further, the pilot indicated the drone would not land. Logs indicate that he used the Autoland feature, which scans the landing surface with optical sensors (Visual Positioning System or VPS) to determine if the surface is suitable. Logs indicate the VPS did not calculate a suitable landing surface. This is consistent with the pilot's report of trying to land on a plastic table, which likely created excessive reflections. In order to conduct a normal landing, the pilot would need to switch out of Autoland, or override it by holding the throttle (left stick) fully back for 2 seconds. Logs indicate the aircraft remained in Autoland mode, and the stick was not pulled fully back for more than ½ second at any time.
The demonstration flight was conducted in a small area, confined by trees, and within close proximity of the observers, 10 feet or less according to witness statements. Although there is no evidence that the pilot flew directly over unprotected persons, or purposely in a hazardous manner, at the time that he perceived a problem with the drone and decided to crash it, the close proximity to the observers should have been accounted for either by warning them to clear away, having an assistant do the same, or to conduct the forced landing in an area clear of the observers.
At the time of the incident, the university and CMI did not have any documented procedure for conducting such demonstrations. Although not required by regulation, the incident pilot did not have any documented aircraft-specific training that might have included the flight manual procedures noted above.
Probable cause
the drone pilot's incorrect control inputs due to insufficient knowledge of the aircraft flight manual procedures.
Contributing to the incident was the close proximity of the observers, and the decision to conduct a demonstration near the observers in a confined area with no assistance.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record DCA18IA269
- Event ID
- 20180819X74619
- Case number
- DCA18IA269
- 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: afd0c1f9ed2ac8854c89b42ee8eb187acf4e47fb0161ff483d30d6c4f3a1ff96; retrieved 2026-09-16T08:06:53.359Z.