The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA20FA124 · Final report

Cessna 177RG accident near Sterling, Massachusetts, March 11, 2020

On March 11, 2020 at about 6:30 pm local time, a 1975 Cessna 177RG, registered N1572H, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Sterling, Massachusetts (Sterling airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

A total loss of engine power during takeoff due to fuel exhaustion. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s inadequate preflight inspection.

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

What the record shows

Date
March 11, 2020 · about 6:30 pm local time
Place
Sterling, Massachusetts · Sterling · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 177RG No Series, built 1975 · all 177RGs on the register
Registration
N1572H · no longer on the register · serial 177RG0746
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

Witnesses reported that, after a normal takeoff, the engine “coughed” and ran roughly as the airplane reached the approximate midpoint of the runway during the initial climb. The airplane crossed over the departure end of the runway in a nose-high attitude with the wings rocking before the left wing “dipped” and the airplane began a left turn and descended out of view. The airplane impacted terrain in a wings-level, nose-down attitude of about 60°. About 3 ounces of fuel was found in each of the intact fuel tanks, with no evidence of fuel leaking into the ground/water. Based on the available fueling records, the most recent fueling likely occurred about 4.8 flight hours before the accident flight. Estimates of fuel used during that time were between 54 and 65 gallons before the accident takeoff. The airplane’s usable fuel capacity was 60 gallons. Examination of the fuel level transmitters revealed that the left fuel tank transmitter was significantly out of specification when in the “empty” position. This would have resulted in the left fuel gauge indicating more fuel than actually present when the fuel level was at or near empty. Based on the amount of fuel found remaining in the tanks, it is likely that the left fuel gauge incorrectly indicated more fuel than was actually available. Whether or to what extent the pilot performed a preflight inspection of the airplane could not be determined; however, had the pilot visually inspected the fuel levels, he would have likely determined that there was insufficient fuel available for the flight. The pilot’s wife reported that the pilot had previously “had trouble with” the airplane’s fuel gauges. Examination of the engine revealed no anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the available information, the circumstances of the accident are consistent with a loss of engine power during takeoff due to fuel exhaustion followed by a loss of control and impact with terrain. Examination of the pilot’s seatbelt/shoulder harness revealed that it would lock normally when tensioned after the accident, however the retraction spring inside the harness reel was found incorrectly installed, and it would not recoil the belt. The belt was found completely unspooled from its reel after the accident. Therefore, it is likely that the pilot’s restraint system was not properly tensioned at the time of the accident; however, it was not possible to determine whether the pilot’s injuries were exacerbated as a result.

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. Fuel exhaustion during initial climb defining event
  2. Loss of engine power (total) during initial climb
  3. Aerodynamic stall/spin during initial climb

The NTSB's findings

  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Fuel planning › Pilot
  • Aircraft › Fluids/misc hardware › Fluids › Fuel › Fluid level
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Inspection › Preflight inspection › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 616 hours in all; 123 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: July 6, 2019
  • Medical certificate: BasicMed
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 6,840 hours
  • Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, October 15, 2019
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,800 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine: Lycoming IO-360-A1B6D (piston); 6,840 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: 3B3 Sterling MA at 6:30 pm
  • Destination: 3B3 Sterling MA
  • Flight plan: none
  • Runway 34, 3,086 ft by 40 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 290° at 5 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 52°F (11°C), dew point 19°F (-7°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.05 inHg
  • Observation at 6:52 pm from FIT, 8 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

13 documents, released by the NTSB on March 29, 2022. 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.