The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA12LA445 · Final report

Cessna 172S accident near Allentown, Pennsylvania, July 9, 2012

On July 9, 2012 at about 9:00 pm local time, a Cessna 172S, registered N680MA, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff near Allentown, Pennsylvania (Allentown Queen City Municipal 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 student pilot's failure to maintain directional control during a touch-and-go takeoff, which resulted in a runway excursion and a subsequent impact with a gopher hole, and the flight instructor's inadequate supervision of the student pilot and his delayed remedial action.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made November 2, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
July 9, 2012 · about 9:00 pm local time · cases in 2012
Place
Allentown, Pennsylvania · Allentown Queen City Municipal · cases near this airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 2 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172S · all 172Ss on the register
Registration
N680MA · registry record · serial 172S8202
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

While the student pilot was conducting touch-and-go landings, about the time of power application after landing, the airplane veered left and departed the runway onto the adjacent grass. The airplane subsequently struck a sign, impacted a gopher hole, and came to rest near a berm, sustaining substantial damage to the airframe and horizontal stabilizer. Three distinct tire tracks were visible in the grass up to the gopher hole. A postaccident examination of the left main landing gear assembly revealed overstress fractures from a single loading event, which was likely the impact with the gopher hole; no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation were found. FAA guidance indicates that an abrupt application of power may result in the airplane yawing sharply to the left. It is likely that at the application of takeoff power, the student pilot failed to apply an appropriate amount of rudder correction and the airplane departed the runway. The flight instructor did not recognize the student’s failure to maintain directional control in a timely manner and failed to take appropriate remedial.

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 on ground during takeoff defining event
  2. Runway excursion during takeoff
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during takeoff (rejected takeoff)

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Directional control › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Student pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Delayed action › Instructor/check pilot
  • Environmental issues › Physical environment › Terrain › (general) › Contributed to outcome

Flight instructor

  • Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 1,000 hours in all; 650 in this make and model; 150 in the last 90 days; 980 as pilot in command; 744 on instruments
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

Dual student

  • Flight time: 20 hours in all; 20 in this make and model
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Last inspection: annual inspection, June 13, 2012
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,600 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming IO-360-L2A (piston); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Gateway Aviation

The flight

  • Departed from: XLL Allentown PA at 7:00 pm
  • Destination: XLL Allentown PA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 25, 3,949 ft by 75 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 240° at 4 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: broken clouds at 10,000 ft; scat at 6,500 ft
  • Temperature: 84°F (29°C), dew point 54°F (12°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.94 inHg
  • Observation at 8:55 pm from XLL

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew2

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

9 documents, released by the NTSB on July 11, 2013. 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.

Other NTSB records under N680MA the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time

1992-10-08ANC93IA007 · incident near Anchorage, AK · no injuries

Connections how this case links to the rest of the register

Aircraft
Place
Record

The whole map of how records connect · these connections as data: /graph/accident/ERA12LA445.json.

The bigger picture in Aviation Analytics: accidents over time since 1982, by model, by phase of flight and conditions, by place and on the map.

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 does not name anyone involved, its policy at this time. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.