# NTSB CEN23LA108: Cessna 172H, N3238L, Crosby, TX, February 12, 2023 - Type: NTSB accident investigation - Classification: Accident · Serious injuries · Class 3 · Limited · Final report - Date: February 12, 2023, 17:28 local (23:28 UTC) - Place: Crosby, TX - Coordinates: 29.937852, -95.041393 (estimated) - Nearby events: https://openairdocs.org/map.md?lat=29.9379&lon=-95.0414&mi=10 - Phase of flight: [Initial climb](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-phases/350) (OpenAirDocs' grouping) - Defining event: [Initial climb: Collision during takeoff/land](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/490) - Highest injury: Serious injuries - Injuries: 1 serious, 1 minor - Status: Completed - Report: Approved by Office Director - Investigation class: Class 3 - NTSB office: Central Region - Parties: Textron Aviation, FAA - NTSB case key (mKey): 106727 - NTSB case page: https://web.ntsb.gov/investigations/?ntsbnumber=CEN23LA108 - NTSB report (PDF, downloads): https://data.ntsb.gov/carol-repgen/api/Aviation/ReportMain/GenerateNewestReport/106727/pdf - NTSB docket: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=106727 - Page: https://openairdocs.org/ntsb/CEN23LA108 ## Probable cause The pilot’s delayed soft-field takeoff procedure, which prevented the pilot from achieving adequate airspeed and a proper climb rate resulting in a collision with a moving train. ## Findings NTSB's coded findings; those marked are part of the probable cause. - [Performance/control parameters: airspeed](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062010): Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintained (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172H, 5 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062010/cases.md?model=2072424), [All aircraft, 1,681 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062010/cases.md) - [Performance/control parameters: climb rate](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062035): Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintained (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172H, 4 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062035/cases.md?model=2072424), [All aircraft, 265 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/01062035/cases.md) - [Action: delayed action](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02041025): Personnel issues › Action/decision · Pilot (probable cause); cases with it: [Cessna 172H, 3 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02041025/cases.md?model=2072424), [All aircraft, 894 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-findings/02041025/cases.md) ## Sequence of events The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event best describes what happened. - [Initial climb: Collision during takeoff/land](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/490) (defining event); cases with it: [Cessna 172H, 2 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/490/sequence.md?model=2072424), [All aircraft, 1,309 cases](https://openairdocs.org/ntsb-events/490/sequence.md) ## Analysis The pilot was performing a soft-field takeoff from a 2,700 ft soft, dry grass runway. According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll the soft terrain seemed to impede his airspeed, so he decided to perform a soft-field takeoff in ground effect. About half the distance down the airstrip, the pilot considered aborting the takeoff because he was concerned the airplane was not gaining enough airspeed to climb and avoid a moving train that was on the railroad track. He ultimately did not abort the takeoff, as he thought he would not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with the train. As the airplane neared the moving train, the pilot pulled up the control yoke to initiate a climb; however, the airplane’s right main landing gear contacted the moving train. The airplane nosed down, impacted terrain, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. A pilot-rated witness stated that it did not appear the airplane reached proper airspeed during the takeoff. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the airplane’s weight and the ambient conditions, the manufacturer’s predicted takeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was about 1,200 ft. It is likely the pilot’s delayed decision to perform a soft-field takeoff procedure resulted in the airplane not adequately accelerating to a proper airspeed and climb rate. ## Factual narrative On February 12, 2023, about 1728 central standard time, a Cessna 172H airplane, N3238L, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Crosby, Texas. The pilot sustained serious injuries, and the passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, he and the passenger had landed earlier that day to discuss some upcoming airplane maintenance items with the owner of the private airstrip. Being unfamiliar with the 2,700 ft long airstrip, the pilot asked the owner about the best direction to complete the takeoff for the return flight. The owner advised to depart runway 9, and that a railroad track, located about 300 ft off the departure end of the dry grass airstrip, would not be a factor. The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll, the soft terrain “seemed to impede our speed somewhat, so I decided to perform a soft field takeoff in ground effect.” About half the distance down the airstrip, the pilot considered aborting the takeoff because he was concerned the airplane was not gaining enough airspeed to climb and avoid a moving train that was on the railroad track. However, he did not abort the takeoff as he thought he would not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with the train. As the airplane neared the moving train, the pilot pulled back the control yoke to initiate a climb; however, the airplane’s right main landing gear contacted the moving train. The airplane then nosed down, impacted terrain, and came to rest inverted. The pilot stated that this was the first time he had operated an airplane at that airstrip and it had been about 4 years since he performed a soft-field takeoff. A witness, who frequently operated his airplane at the airstrip, reported that it appeared the pilot was initially back taxing the airplane for takeoff on runway 27 because the pilot did not apply full power, and the airplane was slowly accelerating down the runway. The witness then realized the pilot was attempting to take off after the airplane’s airspeed slowly increased. He stated the airplane never developed “flying airspeed,” and as the airplane approached the moving train it rapidly pitched up, stalled, and impacted the train. Postaccident examination of the airplane showed substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. Flight control continuity was established from the cockpit to all flight control surfaces. The engine was partially separated from the airplane, and both propeller blades displayed leading edge gouging, forward twist deformation, chordwise scratching, and both blade tips were separated. The wing flaps were in the retracted position. The examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot estimated the airplane’s weight was about 300 pounds less than the maximum gross weight. The manufacturer’s specifications predicted that thetakeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was 1,095 ft. The pilot operating handbook recommended increasing takeoff distance by 7% for operation on a dry, grass runway. Based on the ambient temperature and wind conditions at the time of the accident, predicted takeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was about 1,200 ft. The Federal Aviation Administration Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-38) contains the following information for a soft-field takeoff: After the airplane becomes airborne, the pilot should gently lower the nose with the wheels clear of the surface to allow the airplane to accelerate to Vy, or Vx if obstacles must be cleared. … An attempt to climb prematurely or too steeply may cause the airplane to settle back to the surface as a result of the loss of ground effect. … During the transition out of the ground effect area, the pilot should not attempt to climb out of ground effect before reaching the sufficient climb airspeed, as this may result in the airplane being unable to climb further, even with full power applied. Therefore, it is essential that the airplane remain in ground effect until at least Vx is reached. ## Aircraft - Registration: [N3238L](https://openairdocs.org/deregistered/N3238L-2024-06-15), registration cancelled 2024-06-15, S/N 17256138, built 1967 (OpenAirDocs) - Reported make and model: CESSNA 172H - Registry model: [Cessna 172H](https://openairdocs.org/model/cessna-172h) (registry code 2072424) (OpenAirDocs) - Registry engine: [Continental 0-300 series](https://openairdocs.org/engine/continental-0-300-series) (registry code 17022, reciprocating) (OpenAirDocs) - Category: Airplane - Serial number: 17256138 - Year built: 1967 - Airframe hours: 4667.2 - Engines: Continental O-300-D 145 horsepower reciprocating - Damage: Substantial damage - Flight: Personal, Part 91 - Airworthiness certificate: Standard, Utility; Standard, Normal - Last inspection: Annual, February 2, 2022 - Destination: IWS, Houston, TX - Airport: 1XS1, Dunham Fld, runway 09, 2,700 × 100 ft, grass/turf - Equipment: Stall warning system, ADS-B, Electronic flight bag or handheld device ## Flight crew As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names. - Pilot; age 75; injuries: serious; recreational; airplane ratings: single-engine land; medical: basicmed, without waivers/limitations; last flight review November 13, 2022; seat: left; restraint: 3-point; flight hours: 190 total, 15 in this make and model, 12 in the last 90 days, 5 in the last 30 days, 1 in the last 24 hours ## Weather - Conditions: Visual (VMC), Day - Wind: 230° at 3 knots - Visibility: 10 statute miles - Temperature: 64 °F, dew point 37 °F - Altimeter: 30.10 inHg - Observed at: KIAH, 16 nm away - METAR: KIAH 122253Z 23003KT 10SM FEW180 FEW250 18/03 A3010 ## FAA reports on this event (1) The FAA's own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date (OpenAirDocs). - [Accident 20230212002219A](https://openairdocs.org/incident/20230212002219A), Feb 12, 2023: Cessna 172H, Crosby, TX, Substantial damage. On 2/12/2023 at 1711 CST, a Cessna 172H, s/n 17256138, was departing on runway 9 at Dunham Field Airport, 1XS1, Crosby, TX., when the aircraft came into… ## Docket (7 files) The files NTSB released with the investigation on March 28, 2024, on NTSB's docket system: https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket?ProjectID=106727. 6.4 MB in all. - Pilot/operator aircraft accident report, NTSB form 6120.1 (item 1, PDF, 9 pages, 3.2 MB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15357525&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=3238L%20NTSB%20Accident%20report_Redacted-Rel.pdf - Airplane examination summary (item 2, PDF, 5 pages, 155 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15359571&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=Cessna%20172%20ASOD%20Exam%20Notes-Rel.pdf - Record of conversation - pilot (item 3, PDF, 1 page, 67 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15357739&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=POC%20Pilot-Rel.pdf - Record of conversation - witness (item 4, PDF, 1 page, 66 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15359407&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=ROC%20Witness-Rel.pdf - Excerpt of pilot operating handbook - takeoff data (item 5, PDF, 1 page, 153 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15357535&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=POH%20Takeoff%20Data-Rel.pdf - Statement of party representatives to NTSB investigation - Textron aviation (item 6, PDF, 1 page, 249 KB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15357449&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=Party%20Form%20with%20title%20-%20CEN23-LA108_Redacted-Rel.pdf - Accident photographs (item 7, PDF, 2 pages, 2.5 MB): https://data.ntsb.gov/Docket/Document/docBLOB?ID=15357749&FileExtension=pdf&FileName=Photo%20Array-Rel.pdf From the NTSB's public API. Aircraft are matched to registry aircraft by N-number and event date, checked against the reported serial number, make and model; the registry's history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model. --- OpenAirDocs.org is an independent research project of [Contrail Labs](https://contraillabs.com/). It is not affiliated with the FAA or the NTSB. Source documents are U.S. government works in the public domain.