Cessna 172S accident near Payson, Arizona, April 16, 2011
On April 16, 2011 at about 4:00 pm local time, a Cessna 172S, registered N1835U, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Payson, Arizona (Payson 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 pilot's decision to conduct a touch-and-go arrival during his first flight to a high elevation airport, which resulted in an improper mixture adjustment and a partial loss of engine power for the takeoff and attempted climbout.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- April 16, 2011 · about 4:00 pm local time
- Place
- Payson, Arizona · Payson · 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
- N1835U · no longer on the register · serial 172S9922
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The private pilot and his passenger departed on a flight to an airport with an elevation of 5,157 feet mean sea level (msl), and a density altitude of about 6,200 feet. Although the pilot had received classroom instruction on high elevation airport, high density altitude operations, the flight was his first to a high elevation airport, and he planned to conduct his first landing there as a touch-and-go. After touchdown, the pilot retracted the flaps, applied full throttle, and lifted off. The pilot perceived that the airplane was underperforming on the climbout, and he enriched the fuel-air mixture, which did not rectify the problem. The engine was making "popping" sounds, the airspeed was lower than normal, and the tachometer indicated about 500 rpm less than the target value. The pilot began a right turn back toward the airport, and lowered the airplane’s nose to increase airspeed, but the airplane entered a spin and impacted terrain. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Review of the pilot's history revealed that he received all his training and flight experience through a flight school that was based at an airport with an elevation of about 1,500 feet msl. The pilot's full enrichment of the mixture for the takeoff and climbout at the destination airport was contrary to the procedure published in the airplane manufacturer's Pilot's Operating Handbook, which stated that the mixture was to be leaned for maximum rpm. Considering the dynamic conditions and limited time available to ensure proper mixture adjustment during a touch-and-go landing at a high-elevation airport, and the effect of an improper mixture on airplane climb capability at such an airport, the pilot deprived himself of potential safety margins by deciding to conduct his arrival as a touch and go. His lack of any prior operations at high elevation airports further reduced his safety margin by depriving him of applicable experience. Subsequent to the accident, the pilot’s flight school implemented several new policies regarding operations at high elevation airports, including a prohibition against pilots operating solo at such airports until they have done so with a flight instructor.
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
- Loss of engine power (partial) during initial climb defining event
- Loss of control in flight during maneuvering (low-alt flying)
- Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine controls › Mixture control › Incorrect use/operation
- Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Temp/humidity/pressure › High density altitude › Effect on equipment
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 109 hours in all; 83 in the last 90 days; 32 in the last 30 days; 31 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: March 23, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 2,819 hours
- Last inspection: 100-hour inspection, March 30, 2011
- Maximum gross weight: 2,550 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming IO-360 (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: DVT Deer Valley AZ at 3:00 pm
- Destination: PAN Payson AZ
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 24, 5,500 ft by 75 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 64°F (18°C), dew point 3°F (-16°C)
- Altimeter: 30.07 inHg
- Observation at 3:55 pm from PAN, 1 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.