FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 2

NTSB investigating fatal Cessna 172F crash near Battle Ground, Washington

One person was killed when the 1964 single-engine aircraft was destroyed on the evening of September 26, 2025, according to the accident record.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:05 a.m. ET
One person was killed when a was destroyed near Battle Ground, Washington, at about 8:06 p.m. local time on September 26, 2025, according to the accident record. The record lists one person aboard and one fatality, and classifies the flight as a Part 91 general aviation flight. The investigation is open and this account is developing. The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating, according to the accident record. The cause has not been determined. The accident record identifies the aircraft as a , registration . Aircraft registry records list it as a single-engine piston landplane, serial number 17252119, with a CONT MOTOR 0-300 series engine, built in 1964 and 61 years old at the time of the crash. Registry records list the registered owner as Shaffer Kenneth H; the owner of record is not necessarily the operator, the pilot, or otherwise connected to the flight. Public aircraft-registry listings derived from the FAA registration database show the same name string as an individual registrant of this aircraft, and no pilot-certificate, flight-instruction, flight-club or aviation-business record was found for the name; it has not been confirmed that these records refer to the same person. Geographic reference data places Battle Ground in Clark County, Washington, at a settlement elevation of 299 feet — not the elevation of the accident site — and 1.5 miles northwest of Cedars North Airpark (W58), 2.6 miles south-southeast of Parkside Airpark (WA87) and 3.8 miles south-southeast of Goheen Airport (W52). Weather observations recorded at Pearson Field (KVUO), 12.6 miles away and 13 minutes from the reported time, showed calm wind, visibility of 10 statute miles, clear skies and a temperature of 63°F. Those are instrument readings at another field and are not a stated factor in the accident. For the type, the NTSB database, which begins in 2008, contains 31 other cases involving the , of which four involved a fatality. That count is a matter of record and says nothing about the cause of this accident.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Reference data

From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.

Registration
N8219U
Type
Cessna 172F — single-engine piston landplane
Engines
CONT MOTOR 0-300 SER
Built
1964-01-01 (61 years old)
Registered owner
Shaffer Kenneth HThe owner of record is not necessarily the operator, the pilot, or otherwise connected to the flight.
Terrain elevation
299 ft
Nearest aerodrome
1.5 miles NW of Cedars North Airpark (W58)

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 27 Aug 2026, 14:05current

    Corrected the bearings to nearby aerodromes, which were reversed in the previous version, and clarified that 299 feet is the settlement's elevation rather than the accident site's.

  2. Version 15 Aug 2026, 20:38

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.