ERA23FA142 · Piper J3C 65
Jack Browns Seaplane Base Piper J3C 65 and Sunrise Aviation Piper PA28 161 · Accident: midair collision on approach
Event
- NTSB case
- ERA23FA142
- 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
- 4 · all aircraft and ground
- Ground fatalities
- 0
- 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 · Piper J3C 65
- Aircraft type
- Piper J3
- 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
- N10510
- Operator
- Jack Browns Seaplane Base
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Jack Browns Seaplane Base (F57), Winter Haven, FLTo not recorded
- Aircraft age
- About 78 years (built 1945)
- 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
- Approach · VFR pattern base
- 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
Aircraft 2 · Piper PA28 161
- Aircraft type
- Piper PA28
- 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
- N9221D
- Operator
- Sunrise Aviation
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Lakeland Linder International Airport (LAL), Lakeland, FLTo not recorded
- Aircraft age
- About 35 years (built 1988)
- 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
- Approach · VFR pattern base
- 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 › Psychological
Approximate · Coordinates from the NTSB case API, which marks them as estimated or does not say; no uncertainty radius is established.
NTSB narrative
A float-equipped J3C was returning to its seaplane base for a water landing after a local flight. A PA-28 was performing power-off 180° landing maneuvers at an airport adjacent to the seaplane base. Shortly after the PA-28 pilot announced a left turn to the base leg over the airport common traffic advisory frequency (CTAF), the airplanes collided nearly head-on at 465 ft above ground level.
Postaccident examination of both airplanes revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
The J3C was not equipped with a radio, nor was it required to be. With no radio in the J3C, neither they nor the crew in the PA-28 would have had any attentional cueing that would have alerted them to the other airplane. Neither airplane was equipped with avionics that would allow for an in-cockpit traffic display and only the PA-28 was equipped with ADS-B out.
Review of video evidence from a nearby residence revealed that, given the two flight paths and the nearly head-on impact, the front-seat pilot of the J3C and the right-seat flight instructor of the PA-28 should have been able to detect the other airplane. Both crews efforts to detect the other likely would have been made more difficult by the complex background of sky and ground.
The PA-28 flight instructor’s postaccident toxicology testing results indicated that she had used the antihistamine medication cetirizine. Based on the cetirizine levels measured in cavity blood and tissue, it is possible that she may have been experiencing some associated sedation at the time of the accident. Although sedation can adversely affect vigilance, there is no clear evidence that this was a factor in the collision, which plausibly could have occurred in the absence of impairment.
Ethanol was detected at a very low level in a postmortem cavity blood specimen from the PA-28 pilot receiving instruction. Ethanol was not detected in his urine. These results indicate that some or all of the detected ethanol may have been from postmortem production, and that ethanol effects did not likely contribute to the accident.
The J3C was not equipped with a radio, nor was it required to be, and was therefore not self-announcing or able to receive transmissions on CTAF. With no radio in the JC3, neither they nor the crew in the PA-28 would have had any attentional cueing that would have alerted them to the other airplane. Neither airplane was equipped with avionics that would allow for an in-cockpit traffic display and only the PA-28 was equipped with ADS-B out. Had both flight crews had access to two-way radios and in-cockpit traffic displays, with ADS-B in and out, they likely would have been better able to see and avoid the impending collision.
Probable cause
The failure of both flight crews to see and avoid each other while operating in the airport environment.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record ERA23FA142
- Event ID
- 20230307106845
- Case number
- ERA23FA142
- 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, cause areas. 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: 9e342d33de69594cba68d8b34c537c31b598c9cb7cdefca5526b5a56f8594dc2; retrieved 2026-09-13T18:11:37.463Z.