The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA09CA504 · Final report

Cessna 152 accident near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, August 31, 2009

On August 31, 2009 at about 10:30 pm local time, a Cessna 152, registered N69124, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff (rejected takeoff) near Harrisburg, Pennsylvania (Harmen Airport). It was an instructional 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 student pilot’s delayed decision to abort the takeoff, resulting in an overrun.

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

What the record shows

Date
August 31, 2009 · about 10:30 pm local time
Place
Harrisburg, Pennsylvania · Harmen Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 152 · all 152s on the register
Registration
N69124 · no longer on the register · serial 15282499
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The student pilot stated that he was practicing full-stop landings on a short, grass runway. On his second takeoff, he was dissatisfied with the airplane's rate of climb and aborted the takeoff approximately 2/3 of the way down the runway. After touchdown, the airplane overran the departure end of the runway and came to rest in a bean field, which resulted in substantial damage to the nose gear, firewall, fuselage and propeller. The student pilot’s certified flight instructor (CFI) stated that the runway's length and surface “doesn’t allow for mistakes.” The student pilot further stated there were no mechanical failures or malfunctions to the airplane or any of its systems prior to the accident.

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. Runway excursion during takeoff (rejected takeoff) defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Delayed action › Student/instructed pilot

Dual student

  • Certificate: student
  • Flight time: 101 hours in all; 101 in this make and model; 4 in the last 90 days
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 8,133 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, August 21, 2008; 9 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 1,675 lb
  • Seats: 2
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-235 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: 0PS7 Elizabethtown PA
  • Destination: 0PS7 Elizabethtown PA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 26, 1,900 ft by 150 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 350° at 3 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 64°F (18°C), dew point 54°F (12°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.18 inHg
  • Observation at 10:55 pm from MUI, 14 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

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.