The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA16CA222 · Final report

Cessna 172M accident near Lenoir, North Carolina, June 16, 2016

On June 16, 2016 at about 5:15 pm local time, a 1973 Cessna 172M, registered N12184, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (flare/touchdown) near Lenoir, North Carolina (Lower Creek 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 failure to compensate for gusting wind conditions during landing, which resulted in a bounced landing. Contributing to the accident was the flight instructor’s inadequate review of the weather conditions with the student and his inadequate supervision of the student’s solo cross-country flight.

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

What the record shows

Date
June 16, 2016 · about 5:15 pm local time
Place
Lenoir, North Carolina · Lower Creek · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172M, built 1973 · all 172Ms on the register
Registration
N12184 · no longer on the register · serial 17261868
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The student pilot was returning to his home airport while on his first solo cross-country flight. The wind sock at the airport was favoring a landing on runway 23 with a slight crosswind. He entered the traffic pattern, and when he lined up on the final leg of the traffic pattern to the turf runway, the airplane encountered a large wind gust. He then aborted the landing and rejoined the traffic pattern. The wind sock was still favoring a landing on runway 23, so he set up for the landing again, and this time encountered a larger wind gust, so he aborted the landing a second time. He then entered the traffic pattern again and noticed that the wind sock was still indicating a slight crosswind but now favored a landing on runway 5. He then flew around the traffic pattern and set up for a landing on runway 5. The student reported that, while on final approach for runway 5, the airspeed was "good." The airplane touched down and then "bounced," and the pilot attempted to recover the landing, but the nose landing gear then dug into the ground. The airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted, which resulted in substantial damage to the empennage and vertical stabilizer. Review of archived weather information revealed that, about the time of the accident, the wind was 330° at 11 knots, gusting to 16 knots. Additionally, wind gusts were present for nearly 4 hours before the accident and continued for about 4 hours after the accident. Before the flight, the student pilot met with his flight instructor and showed him his flight plan. The instructor spoke with the student but did not look at the weather reports, and they "did not call in to check the weather." Review of the student's logbook revealed that it contained an endorsement from the instructor stating that he had reviewed the student's cross-country planning and preparation and found it to be correct and adequate for the flight. The endorsement also contained the caveat that the weather should be "clear," and crosswinds should not exceed 7 knots.

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. Preflight or dispatch event during prior to flight
  2. Abnormal runway contact during landing (flare/touchdown) defining event
  3. Nose over/nose down during landing

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Landing flare › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Gusts › Response/compensation
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Student/instructed pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Psychological › Attention/monitoring › (general) › Instructor/check pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Weather planning › Instructor/check pilot
  • Environmental issues › Physical environment › Runway/land/takeoff/taxi surface › Soft surface › Contributed to outcome

Dual student

  • Certificate: student
  • Flight time: 78 hours in all; 78 in this make and model; 11 in the last 90 days; 5 in the last 30 days
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 3,537 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, March 4, 2016
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,300 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320-E20 (piston); 3,415 hours total
  • Operator: Lenoir Aviation Club INC

The flight

  • Departed from: EXX Lexington NC at 4:22 pm
  • Destination: NC27 Lenoir NC
  • Flight plan: VFR
  • Runway 05, 3,200 ft by 150 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 330° at 11 knots, gusting 16
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 93°F (34°C), dew point 54°F (12°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.89 inHg
  • Observation at 5:25 pm from MRN, 10 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

5 documents, released by the NTSB on January 23, 2017. 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.

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.