Cessna 172F accident near Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania, May 31, 2014
On May 31, 2014 at about 4:30 pm local time, a 1964 Cessna 172F, registered N8394U, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff (rejected takeoff) near Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania (Mount Pleasant/Scottsdale airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person had minor injuries; 1 other was unhurt. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's incorrect takeoff procedures from the soft grass runway and his delay in aborting the takeoff after recognizing slow acceleration.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- May 31, 2014 · about 4:30 pm local time
- Place
- Mount Pleasant, Pennsylvania · Mount Pleasant/Scottsdale · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person had minor injuries; 1 other was unhurt.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 172F, built 1964 · all 172Fs on the register
- Registration
- N8394U · no longer on the register · serial 17252294
- 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 the preflight and engine run-up were satisfactory prior to the departure from the 1,641 foot long grass runway; the grass was a little high (estimated to be 5 to 6 inches) and soft due to rain from earlier that week. He consulted the POH and confirmed no flaps for the takeoff. After the engine run-up he taxied onto runway 32 and with the flaps retracted, applied full throttle noting 2,200 rpm, then released the brakes; the wind was from the northwest at 3 to 5 knots. He did not begin the takeoff roll utilizing soft field takeoff procedure of aft control input but did as the takeoff roll continued; later reporting that he "probably didn't initially have the yoke back enough." After a little more than ½ way down the runway at an airspeed less than 50 mph, he aborted the takeoff. Unable to stop, the airplane impacted a guard rail at the end of the runway causing the airplane to nose over. He further stated that there was no preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions with the airplane that would have precluded normal operation. He did state in the Recommendation Section of the submitted NTSB Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident report that the accident might have been prevented by better assessment of the conditions/effects of the grass (softness) and length of the runway, and to either not initiate takeoff or abort sooner. He also indicated that the accident might have been prevented if, "…a perfect soft/short field technique was used." Postaccident inspection of the airplane by a Federal Aviation Administration airworthiness inspector revealed substantial damage to the right wing spar and structure adjacent to the left main landing gear attach point. Another FAA inspector reported no obstructions at the departure end of runway 32. A review of the airplane Owner's Manual indicates 0 flap extension is specified for normal and maximum performance takeoff; however, 10 degrees of flaps is specified to be used for minimum ground runs or for takeoff from soft or rough fields with no obstacles ahead. The takeoff performance chart does not indicate distances for grass runway. Excerpts of the Owner's Manual are contained in the NTSB public docket.
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
- Runway excursion during takeoff (rejected takeoff) defining event
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during takeoff (rejected takeoff)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Delayed action › Pilot
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Flight control system › TE flap control system › Not used/operated
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Runway/land/takeoff/taxi surface › Soft › Effect on operation
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Object/animal/substance › Fence/fence post › Contributed to outcome
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 282 hours in all; 69 in this make and model; 6 in the last 90 days; 1 in the last 30 days; 205 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: August 16, 2013
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: minor injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 3,926 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 21, 2014
- Maximum gross weight: 2,300 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Cont Motor 0-300 SER (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: P45 Mount Pleasant PA at 4:30 pm
- Destination: P45 Mount Pleasant PA
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 32, 1,641 ft by 175 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 350° at 5 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 5,000 ft
- Temperature: 72°F (22°C), dew point 52°F (11°C)
- Altimeter: 30.22 inHg
- Observation at 4:40 pm from LBE, 12 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 1 |
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.
