CEN24LA178

NTSB accident investigation · Cessna 172M · Midland, TX · May 8, 2024

Accident · No injuriesClass 4 · LimitedFinal report
Date
May 8, 2024, 13:15 local (18:15 UTC)
Place
Midland, TX
Injuries
1 uninjured
Damage
Substantial damage
Phase of flight
Approach
Aircraft
N69PWCessna 172M
Defining event
Approach-VFR go-around: Loss of control in flight
Weather
Visual (VMC) · Day
Status
Completed
Report
Approved by Office Director
Investigation class
Class 4 - Basic report with no Prelim publish
NTSB office
Central Region
Parties
FAA
FAA report
20240508005179A
Case key
194231

From the NTSB’s public API. By law, NTSB reports can’t be used as evidence in lawsuits over the accident.

On this page

Probable cause

The pilot’s failure to maintain airplane control during a go-around in a gusting crosswind, which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and collision with terrain. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s lack of system knowledge regarding the operation of the flaps.

Findings · 5

NTSB’s coded findings. Those marked are part of the probable cause; the rest are factors or other findings. Under each, the cases with the same finding.

Flight control system: tE flap control systemAircraft › Aircraft systems · Incorrect use/operationCessna 172M: 4 casesAll aircraft: 74 casesProbable cause
Knowledge: knowledge of equipmentPersonnel issues › Experience/knowledge · PilotCessna 172M: 1 caseAll aircraft: 69 casesProbable cause
Wind: gustsEnvironmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena · Effect on operationCessna 172M: 26 casesAll aircraft: 1,199 cases
Performance/control parameters: airspeedAircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability · Not attained/maintainedCessna 172M: 24 casesAll aircraft: 1,681 casesProbable cause
Use of equip/info: aircraft controlPersonnel issues › Task performance · PilotCessna 172M: 123 casesAll aircraft: 9,295 casesProbable cause

Sequence of events

The events NTSB coded, in order, by phase of flight. The defining event is the one that best describes the accident. Under each, the cases with the same event anywhere in their sequence.

Analysis

The pilot reported he was landing the airplane when a strong gust of wind pushed the airplane to the right about halfway down the runway. The pilot reported that after he initiated a go-around, the airplane became uncontrollable which resulted in an aerodynamic stall and impact with the ground. The impact resulted in substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. Initially the pilot reported that there were no mechanical malfunctions related to the airplane so the airplane was released to the owner. Later, the pilot reported that he did not hear the stall horn and suspected it was inoperable. He also stated that the flap switch physically stuck in the up position which retracted the flaps fully and contributed to the stall. The pilot was asked to describe the normal operation of the flap switch. He stated that holding the switch up raises the flaps, holding the switch down lowers the flaps, and letting go of the switch shuts off the flap motor. When follow up was conducted on the reported mechanical issues, the airplane was found stripped of parts, thus examination of the stall horn was not possible. The flap switch was removed and examined. The flap switch specifications and the Pilot Operating Handbook both stated that the switch would remain in the up position until the switch was physically moved to the center (off) position, thus if the pilot let go of the switch while raising the flaps, the switch would stay in the up position and continue to raise the flaps to zero. During a go around, the flaps should have initially been retracted to 20 degrees which would require the pilot to move the flap switch back to the neutral position after the flaps reached 20 degrees. After the airplane was established in a climb, the remaining flaps would be retracted by returning the flap switch to the up position. The switch was found to operate normally with no defects found. Based on the pilot’s description of the flap switch operation it is likely he did not know how the switch functioned.

Aircraft

Registration
N69PW
Reported as
Cessna 172M
Category
Airplane
Serial number
17265317
Built
1975
Airframe hours
5,982
Engine
Lycoming O-320-E2D, 150 horsepower, reciprocating
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Aerial observation · Part 91
Registered owner
American Patrols Inc
Airworthiness certificate
Standard, Normal
Last inspection
100 hour · April 20, 2024
Destination
Same as departure
Airport
7T7 · Skywest Airport, runway 24, 2,800 × 45 ft, asphalt
Equipment
ADS-B, Stall warning system

Matched to the registry by N-number and the event date; the registry’s history has gaps, so older matches can be wrong. Compare the reported make and model.

Flight crew

As NTSB recorded them. NTSB leaves out names.

Role
Pilot
Age
33
Injuries
None
Certificates
Commercial, Private
Airplane ratings
Single-engine land
Instrument ratings
Airplane
Medical
Class 1, With waivers/limitations
Last flight review
October 3, 2023
Seat
Left
Flight hours
757 total · 565.8 in this make and model · 512.6 as pilot in command · 167.1 in the last 90 days

Weather

Conditions
Visual (VMC) · Day
Wind
280° at 14 knots, gusting 21
Visibility
10 statute miles
Lowest ceiling
None
Temperature
88 °F, dew point 23 °F
Altimeter
29.72 inHg
Observed at
KMAF, 8 nm away
METAR
METAR KMAF 081753Z 28014G21KT 230V300 10SM CLR 31/M05 A2972 RMK AO2 PK WND 26027/1702 SLP012 T03061050 10306 20156 58006=

Docket · 5

The files NTSB released with the investigation on October 22, 2024, on NTSB’s docket system: statements, records, photos and specialists’ reports. 10.2 MB in all.

FAA reports on this event · 1

The FAA’s own accident and incident reports, matched to the aircraft by N-number and date.