The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN24LA178 · Final report

Cessna 172M accident near Midland, Texas, May 8, 2024

On May 8, 2024 at about 6:15 pm local time, a 1975 Cessna 172M, registered N69PW, was substantially damaged in an accident during approach (VFR go-around) near Midland, Texas (Skywest Airport). It was an aerial observation flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

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.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
May 8, 2024 · about 6:15 pm local time
Place
Midland, Texas · Skywest Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172M, built 1975 · all 172Ms on the register
Registration
N69PW · no longer on the register · serial 17265317
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Aerial observation flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

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.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Loss of control in flight during approach (VFR go-around) defining event
  2. Aerodynamic stall/spin during approach (VFR go-around)
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent

The NTSB's findings

  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Flight control system › TE flap control system › Incorrect use/operation
  • Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Knowledge › Knowledge of equipment › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Gusts › Effect on operation
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Airspeed › Not attained/maintained
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot, private
  • Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 757 hours in all; 565.8 in this make and model; 167.1 in the last 90 days; 512.6 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: October 3, 2023
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 5,982 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, April 20, 2024
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,200 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320-E2D (piston); 8,109 hours total

The flight

  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 24, 2,800 ft by 45 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 280° at 14 knots, gusting 21
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 88°F (31°C), dew point 23°F (-5°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.72 inHg
  • Observation at 12:53 pm from KMAF, 8 miles away

Weather report (METAR): METAR KMAF 081753Z 28014G21KT 230V300 10SM CLR 31/M05 A2972 RMK AO2 PK WND 26027/1702 SLP012 T03061050 10306 20156 58006=

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

5 documents, released by the NTSB on October 22, 2024. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.