Piper PA-28 (Cherokee) Accidents: What the NTSB Records Show and What Comes Next

What the Piper PA-28 Is and Why the Kind of Flight Matters to You

The PA-28 is a family of single-engine airplanes that the NTSB's records list under the make "Piper." The series is widely known as the Cherokee. The records discussed on this page name several models in the family, including the PA-28-140, PA-28-161, PA-28-180 and PA-28-181.

The flights in those records show how the airplane is used. The NTSB classified them as instructional flights, a personal flight and an "other work use" flight. Each one was flown under Part 91. Part 91 is the set of federal aviation rules for general aviation, meaning private, personal and instructional flying that is not a paid charter or airline service. Part 135 is the separate set of federal rules for charter and air-taxi operators, which fly people for hire under an operating certificate. A PA-28 can appear in either setting. In the records here, the NTSB noted "Operating Certificate(s) Held: None."

For someone who was hurt or lost a family member, the type of flight shapes who was involved. A lesson may involve a flight school, an instructor, an aircraft owner and a maintenance shop. A personal flight may involve only the pilot and the owner. A rented airplane may involve a rental business, a flying club or a separate owner. Each of these roles can carry its own legal duties, so the people whose conduct may matter depend on which roles existed that day.

If you were on a PA-28 flight, a useful first question is simply what kind of flight it was and who arranged it: a school, a club, a friend or an owner. That is often one of the first points a conversation with an attorney sorts out. The broader picture appears on our aviation accident lawyer page.

Recent NTSB Accident Records for the PA-28 and What Each Status Means for a Family

The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is the independent federal agency that investigates civil aviation accidents in the United States. Below are five recent records from its accident data naming PA-28 models, newest first. Records located in California are left out of this national page. This short list is the site's own selection, not an NTSB statistic, and an investigation's status can change after the date these records were read.

A preliminary report is the NTSB's early account of the facts while the investigation is still open. It carries the NTSB's own warning: "This information is preliminary and subject to change." It does not state a cause. A final report closes the investigation and may state the NTSB's probable cause, which is the agency's own conclusion about why the accident happened. For a family, this means an early report can describe what happened without saying why, and the details in it may still change.

• CEN26LA329, September 26, 2026, Mason, Michigan, PA-28-181, a Part 91 instructional flight. The highest injury recorded was none, and the aircraft damage was "Substantial." The NTSB's Aviation Investigation Notification - Accident Number: CEN26LA329 states that it is conducting a Class 4 investigation. It also states, "A preliminary report will not be issued but a final report will be released at the conclusion of the investigation." The investigation is open.
• ANC26LA107, PA-28-140. The highest injury recorded was serious. The NTSB data did not carry a probable-cause statement for this record.
• ERA26FA329, September 5, 2026, near Ludlow, Massachusetts, PA-28-181, a Part 91 personal flight. The Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report - Accident Number: ERA26FA329 states that the pilot and passenger were fatally injured and the airplane was destroyed. It also states that "the airplane wreckage was recovered and retained for further examination." The investigation is open, and no cause has been stated.
• ERA26LA328, September 3, 2026, near Dallas, Georgia, PA-28-180, a Part 91 instructional flight. The Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report - Accident Number: ERA26LA328 states that the flight instructor and student pilot were seriously injured. It says the instructor "performed a forced landing in a densely wooded area." The investigation is open, and no cause has been stated.
• CEN26LA304, September 1, 2026, Hudson Oaks, Texas, PA-28-161, a Part 91 "other work use" flight. The highest injury recorded was none. The NTSB data read on October 17, 2026 did not carry a probable-cause statement for this record. However, the NTSB's Aviation Investigation Final Report - Accident Number: CEN26LA304 does state one. The NTSB determined the probable cause to be "the pilot's loss of directional control during the rejected takeoff, which resulted in a runway excursion." It also listed contributing factors: "the pilot's decision to abort the takeoff after the airplane had accelerated above its normal rotation speed" and "the flight school's non-standard engine break-in takeoff procedure."

No conclusion about any other flight, or about the PA-28 as a model, follows from these records. If you are connected to one of these flights, it can help to note the accident number and whether the report is preliminary or final, since that tells you whether a stated cause exists yet. An attorney can help explain what a given report does and does not say.

What an Open NTSB Investigation Means for Your Civil Claim

The NTSB's job is safety, not blame. Under 49 C.F.R. § 831.4, the NTSB investigates "to determine the facts, conditions, and circumstances relating to an accident." It uses those results to determine one or more probable causes and to issue safety recommendations. The same regulation says its investigations "are fact-finding proceedings with no adverse parties." It adds that they "are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights, liabilities, or blame of any person or entity."

Congress kept the two systems apart in another way as well. 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) provides: "No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report." The CEN26LA304 final report repeats this rule. It also notes that a factual report "that may be admissible under 49 United States Code section 1154(b)" is available through its docket.

For a family reading a probable-cause statement, this distinction can feel strange. The NTSB's conclusion is a safety finding. It is not a verdict and does not prove or disprove anyone's legal fault. A civil case is decided on its own evidence and under state legal standards. An open NTSB investigation does not, by itself, stop a civil claim from being filed. That leaves a person weighing a claim with two timelines at once: the NTSB's, which can run for months, and the state's legal deadline, which keeps running regardless. Our page on pilot error in crashes explains why an investigative label is not a court finding.

Who May Be Responsible After a PA-28 Accident — and What the Law Asks

Responsibility in a PA-28 accident is not decided by the aircraft model. It turns on what happened on that flight. The roles whose conduct may be examined usually include the pilot, the aircraft owner, the flight school or operator, the maintenance provider, and the manufacturer of the aircraft or one of its parts. For someone who was hurt, this means a claim, if there is one, may involve more than one party, or none.

Claims like these are usually framed in one of two ways. The first is negligence, which means a failure to use reasonable care. To decide whether someone was negligent toward you, the law generally asks four things: whether that person owed you a duty of care, whether they breached it, whether that breach caused your harm, and what damages resulted. The second is product liability, the body of law about defective products. It generally asks whether a product had a defect in its design, its manufacture or its warnings, and whether that defect caused the injury. An injury does not prove anyone's fault, and a crash does not prove a defect.

Federal aviation rules set the regulatory backdrop. They cover matters such as airworthiness, maintenance and inspections, and these standards can inform what reasonable care looks like. The ERA26LA328 preliminary report, for example, records that the airplane's most recent 100-hour inspection took place on September 1, 2026. That is a fact in the record, not a finding about anyone's conduct. Nothing on this page states or implies that Piper, any operator, any maintenance provider or anyone else caused an injury or broke a rule.

If you were hurt, or lost someone, the open question is often which of these roles existed and who filled them. A conversation with our attorney can cover the parties involved and the legal theories that might be relevant. The page on small plane crashes discusses responsible parties by type in more depth.

Why the Type of Operation Matters to Your Claim

If you were a passenger or a student, the kind of flight you were on shapes who may have owed you a duty. A lesson places you in a relationship with a flight school and an instructor. A personal flight places you with the pilot and the owner. A paid charter flown under Part 135 involves a certificated operator. The duties each one owed depend on that relationship and on state law.

A flight school generally owes reasonable care to its students. A charter operator carries passengers for hire under its own federal certificate. Whether an operator is held to a higher standard than an ordinary private pilot is a question that state law answers, and the answer can differ from one state to another. Nothing here states that any operator met or failed its duties.

If you are unsure what kind of flight you were on, several public records can help answer it. Searching the FAA's aircraft registry by the airplane's N-number shows who the registered owner is. Whether the operator held a certificate shows whether the flight was conducted under Part 135. And the NTSB report for the accident lists "Flight Conducted Under" and "Operating Certificate(s) Held," which together point to the kind of operation and the parties likely involved.

Federal rules describe how the flight was regulated. State tort law, the law of civil wrongs, governs most of the claim itself, including fault, damages and deadlines. For example, the Hudson Oaks record sits alongside the separate questions covered on our page on Texas aviation accident claims.

Filing Deadlines and Damages Under State Law

Every state sets its own limitation period, which is the deadline for filing a civil claim. These periods differ from state to state. They can differ by the type of claim, and the rules for when the clock starts and any exceptions can differ too. A claim filed after the applicable deadline may be barred. This page does not state any state's period, and nothing here says how much time a particular reader has.

The law may allow several categories of damages, depending on the state and the facts. These can include medical expenses, lost earnings, pain and suffering, and, after a death, wrongful-death damages. Wrongful death is a claim brought after a person dies because of another's wrongful act. State law sets who may bring that claim and what it may include. States also differ on comparative or contributory fault (how a victim's own share of fault affects a claim) and on whether damages are capped. None of this says whether a reader has a claim or what it might be worth.

Federal law can change the picture in narrow settings. The Death on the High Seas Act (DOHSA) is a federal law that can govern wrongful-death claims for deaths on the high seas, beyond a state's coastal waters. When a fatal flight ends over open ocean, DOHSA may apply instead of a state's wrongful-death law. Families facing that question can find more on our aviation wrongful death page.

Because these rules vary by state, the applicable deadline is often among the first things people want pinned down. If you would like to talk it through, you can request a case evaluation to discuss the dates and the place involved.

Records That Can Help Answer Your Questions After a PA-28 Accident

The NTSB's own report, preliminary or final, is a public record. NTSB reports are published through its CAROL database, which is where the reports linked on this page come from. One practical point for families: under 49 C.F.R. § 831.13, the parties taking part in an investigation must promptly hand over to the NTSB the information they obtain, such as photographs, wreckage documentation, interview statements and flight data, unless the NTSB authorizes them to keep it. That means some of this material sits with the investigation rather than with the people involved.

Beyond the NTSB's file, several kinds of records tend to come up in PA-28 claims:

• FAA aircraft registry records, searched by N-number, which identify the registered owner and the airplane's registration status.
• The airplane's maintenance logs, which track inspections, repairs and compliance with airworthiness directives (FAA orders requiring specific inspections or fixes).
• The pilot's certificate and medical certificate records.
• Air traffic control communications and radar or ADS-B tracking data, where a flight was in contact with controllers. The ERA26FA329 preliminary report, for example, draws on both.
• The injured person's own medical records, which document the injuries and treatment.

Each category answers a different question: who owned and controlled the airplane, its condition, who was flying it, what happened in the air, and what harm resulted. For someone who was hurt, this means the full picture rarely comes from one source. Some records are public, some are your own, such as medical records and any photos or names of witnesses, and some are obtained only through formal legal channels. A conversation with an attorney can help sort out which records exist and how each may be obtained.