The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR10FA384 · Final report

Cessna 172 accident near Roche Harbor, Washington, August 6, 2010

On August 6, 2010, a Cessna 172, registered N9730H, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Roche Harbor, Washington (Roche Harbor airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 2 people 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 failure to attain an adequate climb airspeed due to his use of flaps for takeoff, and his selection of a runway, which resulted in an uphill, and possibly downwind, takeoff and subsequent collision with a known obstacle. Contributing to the accident was the operator's cockpit checklist that did not accurately reflect the manufacturer's takeoff procedures.

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

What the record shows

Date
August 6, 2010
Place
Roche Harbor, Washington · Roche Harbor · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
2 people had minor injuries; 1 other was unhurt.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 172 M · all 172s on the register
Registration
N9730H · no longer on the register · serial 17266338
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The pilot departed from an uphill runway, with 10 to 15 degrees of flaps extended for takeoff, which was contrary to the manufacturer's guidance in the Pilot Operating Handbook (POH). The pilot stated that after liftoff, while trying to achieve and maintain an appropriate airspeed, the airplane encountered a downdraft, and he then heard a “pop” that he believed to be an engine problem. The airplane struck trees and terrain about 1,500 feet from the departure end of the runway, and incurred substantial damage to the wings and fuselage. Two separate post accident examinations, including a brief engine run, did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal engine operation, and propeller cuts to tree limbs at the accident site indicated that the engine was developing power. According to the pilot, he selected the departure direction based on his observation of a windsock nearest the runway threshold. He had flown into the airport about 10 times previously, and was aware the runway sloped uphill and that there were trees about 1,000 feet beyond the departure end. The lack of an airport wind information recording system precluded determination of the wind conditions at the time of the accident, but calculations based on wind direction and speed information from the three weather observation stations nearest the accident site yielded values that ranged from a 4-knot headwind to an 8-knot tailwind. The POH stated that normal and obstacle clearance takeoffs were to be performed with wing flaps retracted, and specified the use of takeoff flaps only for soft or rough fields. The operator developed checklist used by the pilot did not include any specific guidance on the use of flaps for takeoff. The performance data in the POH did not enable a takeoff distance calculation that accounted for the runway slope or the use of flaps; calculations that used the available POH data indicated that with a tailwind of 8 knots, about 2,000 feet were required to clear a 50-foot obstacle. The accident site terrain elevation was approximately 100 feet higher than the departure threshold, and the trees at the site were approximately 50 feet tall.

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. Collision during takeoff/land during initial climb defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action selection › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Wind › Tailwind › Effect on operation
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Airspeed › Not attained/maintained
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of equip/system › Pilot
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Flight control system › TE flap control system › Incorrect use/operation
  • factor Organizational issues › Development › Design › Design of document/info › Operator
  • Environmental issues › Operating environment › Airport facilities/design › Runway/landing area condition › Effect on operation

Pilot

  • Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 22,000 hours in all; 750 in this make and model; 58 in the last 90 days; 20 in the last 30 days; 19,000 as pilot in command; 13,000 on instruments
  • Last flight review: August 23, 2008
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: minor injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 12,444 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, June 24, 2010; 38 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,300 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320 (piston); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: WA09 Roche Harbor WA
  • Destination: NUW Oak Harbor WA
  • Runway 07, 3,593 ft by 30 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 70°F (21°C), dew point 55°F (13°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.85 inHg

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers11

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.