The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA10LA377 · Final report

Cessna 172N accident near Waynesboro, Virginia, July 24, 2010

On July 24, 2010 at about 8:00 pm local time, a Cessna 172N, registered N3480E, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Waynesboro, Virginia (Eagles Nest Airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 3 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot's failure to follow the short-field takeoff procedures published in the Pilot's Operating Handbook.

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

What the record shows

Date
July 24, 2010 · about 8:00 pm local time
Place
Waynesboro, Virginia · Eagles Nest Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 3 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172N · all 172Ns on the register
Registration
N3480E · no longer on the register · serial 17271564
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The pilot stated that prior to departure he calculated the weight, balance, and density altitude for his departure airport. Using the reported temperature of 40 degrees Celsius, he determined the takeoff roll would be 1,500 feet by referencing the airplane's Pilot Operating Handbook (POH). The departure runway was annotated in the airport directory as being 2,009 feet long and in poor condition. The pilot planned to use the grass overrun area of the runway to extend the departure roll by about 400 feet. The pilot completed an engine run-up and noted no anomalies. He extended the flaps to 10 degrees for a short-field takeoff and taxied into position for takeoff. With the brakes set, he increased the throttle to full power and leaned the mixture in an effort to gain better performance. When the tachometer indicated 2,400 rpm, he released the brakes and started the takeoff roll. Initial acceleration was slow, but once the airplane reached the paved runway the airplane accelerated normally. The airplane lifted off the runway and remained in ground effect. The pilot turned to the left to avoid trees, flew under power lines, and made a forced landing to a field where the airplane collided with a fence. The airport manager, who observed the takeoff, stated that the pilot forced the airplane into the air, and it wallowed left to right barely flying. He opined that the airplane never flew out of ground effect. According to the POH, "...normal and short field takeoffs are performed with flaps up. Use of 10 degree flaps is reserved for takeoff from soft or rough fields. Use of 10 degree flaps allows safe use of approximately 5 KIAS lower takeoff speeds than with flaps up. The lower speeds result in shortening takeoff distances up to approximately 10 percent. However, this advantage is lost if flaps up speeds are used, or in high altitude takeoffs at maximum weight where climb performance would be marginal with 10 degree flaps. Therefore, use of 10 degree flaps is not recommended for takeoff over an obstacle at high altitude in hot weather..."

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. Miscellaneous/other during prior to flight
  2. Loss of lift during initial climb defining event
  3. Off-field or emergency landing during emergency descent
  4. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during landing (landing roll)

The NTSB's findings

  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Performance calculations › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of checklist › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Temp/humidity/pressure › High density altitude › Contributed to outcome
  • Environmental issues › Physical environment › Object/animal/substance › Fence/fence post › Contributed to outcome

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 700 hours in all; 300 in this make and model; 24 in the last 90 days; 9 in the last 30 days; 650 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: July 22, 2010
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 5,182 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, October 2, 2009; 28 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,300 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Apollo Aviation Inc

The flight

  • Departed from: W13 Waynesboro VA at 8:00 pm
  • Destination: USW Spencer WV
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 24, 2,009 ft by 50 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 150° at 6 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: overcast at 2,500 ft
  • Temperature: 81°F (27°C), dew point 72°F (22°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.12 inHg
  • Observation at 8:00 pm from SHD, 11 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers2

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.