Piper PA28 accident near Phoenix, Arizona, January 6, 2012
On January 6, 2012 at about 10:48 pm local time, a Piper PA28, registered N4175V, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (landing roll) near Phoenix, Arizona (Phoenix Deer Valley 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 pilot’s inability to maintain directional control during the landing roll for reasons that could not be determined because impact damage precluded determination of the preaccident functionality of the braking and steering systems.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- January 6, 2012 · about 10:48 pm local time
- Place
- Phoenix, Arizona · Phoenix Deer Valley · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Piper PA28 181 · all PA28s on the register
- Registration
- N4175V · no longer on the register · serial 2843126
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The student pilot planned to conduct a solo cross-country flight with intermediate stops at two other airports before returning to the flight school base airport. The taxi, takeoff, flight, and touchdown of the first leg were normal. However, during the landing roll, the airplane pulled right, but the pilot was able to keep the airplane on the runway. The pilot stopped the airplane but did not shut down the engine or exit the airplane. Instead, he leaned out the door of the low-wing airplane to check for anomalies. He did not report seeing anything unusual; however, the wing would have blocked his view of the landing gear. He then taxied the airplane, departed, and did not experience any anomalies or difficulties with the airplane during that departure and flight. However, the student was concerned about the event at the first destination, so he opted not to land at the second planned destination, and, instead, he circled a few times and then headed toward the base airport. Although the flight school encouraged students to solicit assistance in the event of off-site problems and the pilot could have contacted the school via radio, he did not do so nor did he explain why he did not do so. The landing at the base airport was normal until the nose gear touched down, and the airplane subsequently veered right and departed the runway. The airplane struck a runway distance sign and a berm, which substantially damaged the nose and right main landing gear. Postaccident examination of the airplane did not reveal any preexisting mechanical malfunctions or failures with the landing gear that would have precluded normal operation, but impact damage to the landing gear precluded a determination of the braking and steering systems' preaccident condition and functionality. Review of maintenance records indicated that the airplane had operated normally in the several months since its most recent landing gear and steering system maintenance. Subsequent to the accident, the flight school provided students with mobile phones to improve their ability to contact the flight school in the event of off-site problems or difficulties.
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 control on ground during landing (landing roll) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Not determined › Not determined › (general) › (general) › Unknown/Not determined
- Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Nose/tail landing gear › Not specified
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Directional control › Not attained/maintained
Dual student
- Certificate: student
- Flight time: 66 hours in all; 66 in this make and model; 66 in the last 90 days; 28 in the last 30 days; 8 as pilot in command
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 10,389 hours
- Last inspection: approved inspection programme, December 17, 2011; 49 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 2,550 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Lycoming O360 (piston); 0 hours total
- Operator: Transpac Aviation Academy
The flight
- Departed from: E63 Gila Bend AZ at 9:00 pm
- Destination: DVT Phoenix AZ
- Flight plan: VFR
- Runway 25L, 8,197 ft by 100 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: at 0 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 70°F (21°C), dew point 27°F (-3°C)
- Altimeter: 29.96 inHg
- Observation at 10:53 pm from DVT
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 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.