Cessna 172RG accident near Okeechobee, Florida, April 6, 2011
On April 6, 2011 at about 1:30 am local time, a Cessna 172RG, registered N5284V, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (landing roll) near Okeechobee, Florida (Okeechobee County Airport). It was an instructional flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The failure of the main landing gear to lock in the extended position for undetermined reasons and both pilots’ failure to ensure that the landing gear was down and locked prior to landing.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- April 6, 2011 · about 1:30 am local time
- Place
- Okeechobee, Florida · Okeechobee County Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 172RG · all 172RGs on the register
- Registration
- N5284V · registry record · serial 172RG0494
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
According to the flight instructor, he and the pilot-rated student entered the left downwind leg of the traffic pattern to land. The flight instructor read the before-landing checklist, and the pilot-rated student extended the landing gear. The flight instructor put his hand on the landing gear handle to verify that the landing gear was down because he could not see the green light from where he was sitting. According to the pilot-rated student, he extended the landing gear on the downwind leg of the traffic pattern, saw the green landing gear indicator light, and felt the vibrations and heard the sounds associated with the landing gear extension. They continued onto the base and final leg of the traffic pattern and landed the airplane. The pilots described what initially felt like a normal landing roll but then the main landing gear collapsed and the airplane's empennage began scraping the runway. The airplane came to rest on the left side of the runway centerline. A postaccident examination revealed that the main landing gear had collapsed while the nose gear remained locked in the down position. A postaccident examination of the runway revealed tire marks that were about 5 to 6 feet apart, narrowing to 2 to 3 feet apart leading to the airplane. According to guidance provided by the manufacturer, the distance between the two main landing gear tires with the gear fully extended was 8 feet and 6 inches, indicating that the landing gear was likely not fully deployed at touchdown. A postaccident examination of the landing gear system was performed, and the landing gear, power pack, and emergency landing gear extension, were operated several times. The examination noted no grinding noise and no anomalies with the main landing gear’s operation. Further examination revealed that the landing gear warning horn did not operate, but the landing gear indicator light operated correctly. Although the landing gear indicator light is slightly obscured from the right seat, a slight left head movement while seated would allow the light to be clearly visible from the right seat. Additionally, the before-landing checklist calls for visual verification that the associated gear is down and locked through each pilot’s side window.
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
- Landing gear collapse during landing (landing roll) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Main landing gear › Failure
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action performance › Instructor/check pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action performance › Student pilot
Flight instructor
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane; rotorcraft: glider
- Flight time: 15,000 hours in all
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
Dual student
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; rotorcraft: helicopter
- Flight time: 145 hours in all
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 9,007 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, September 18, 2010
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Lycoming O&VO-360 SER (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: X14 La Belle FL
- Destination: OBE Okeechobee FL
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 23, 5,000 ft by 100 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: night, dark
- Wind: from 290° at 5 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 2,600 ft
- Temperature: 70°F (21°C), dew point 64°F (18°C)
- Altimeter: 29.98 inHg
- Observation at 3:12 am from OBE
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 2 |
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.