The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB WPR23LA334 · Final report

Piper PA-28-140 accident near Prescott, Arizona, September 2, 2023

On September 2, 2023 at about 3:06 pm local time, a 1965 Piper PA-28-140, registered N6834W, was substantially damaged in an accident during takeoff near Prescott, Arizona (Prescott Rgnl - Ernest A Love airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 4 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot-in-command’s inadequate preflight planning for the high density altitude and relative humidity conditions and his failure to recognize the need to reject the takeoff, allowing the student pilot to execute an abnormally long takeoff roll and apply excessive nose-high control inputs, which resulted in rotation with inadequate climb performance and an inflight collision with terrain.

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

What the record shows

Date
September 2, 2023 · about 3:06 pm local time
Place
Prescott, Arizona · Prescott Rgnl - Ernest A Love · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 4 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Piper PA-28-140, built 1965 · all PA-28-140s on the register
Registration
N6834W · registry record · serial 28-20975
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The private pilot, who was pilot-in-command (PIC) and seated in the left seat, and the student pilot, who owned the airplane and was seated in the right seat, had landed at the airport with the two passengers to refuel the airplane. The airport had a field elevation of 5,045 ft mean sea level (msl) and the density altitude was calculated to be 6,375 ft. The PIC calculated that the airplane’s weight after fueling was about 38 lbs under its maximum gross weight and within the center of gravity envelope. The student pilot taxied the airplane for departure and reported that the engine run-up was normal. He subsequently requested a “short delay” from the air traffic controller to review the takeoff checklist with the PIC, including verifying the flap setting, rotation airspeed, and climb airspeed. During the takeoff roll, the airplane used about 3,000 ft of runway before rotating. When the airplane was about 200 ft above ground level (agl), it stopped climbing, and the stall warning light illuminated. The student pilot said he had “every intent of us pulling on the yoke to maintain the climb” but that, after a few seconds of trying to gain airspeed by leveling the nose, the airplane would not maintain airspeed or gain altitude. The PIC took control of the airplane to attempt to maximize airspeed and glide distance but stated that his forward visibility was limited due to the airplane’s nose-high attitude and that he was unable to see a nearby road that the student pilot had identified as suitable for landing; the student pilot took control of the airplane and directed it toward the road. During the landing sequence, the airplane collided with treetops and a tree branch before coming to rest at the side of the road. Postaccident examination of the airplane and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Using an external fuel source, the engine was run uneventfully throughout various power settings. According to the airplane performance charts in the owner’s handbook (OH) for the airplane, based on the density altitude conditions at the time of takeoff, the calculated takeoff distance ground run for the airplane was about 1,600 ft. Although the student pilot had mistakenly calculated that the ground run would be “around 2,700 ft,” the student pilot continued the takeoff after the airplane’s ground roll exceeded that distance, and the PIC did not call for a rejected takeoff. The 7,619-ft runway would have provided ample distance to stop the airplane on the runway had a rejected takeoff been initiated, even at the erroneously calculated ground roll distance. The excessive ground roll before rotation, the illumination of the stall warning light shortly after rotation, and the student pilot’s statement that his intention was to pull on the yoke to maintain the climb all provide evidence that the student pilot excessively raised the airplane’s nose during the takeoff roll and climb; the PIC did not intervene until after the stall warning light illuminated. The excessive nose-high attitude degraded the airplane’s takeoff roll and climb performance. Further, the PIC stated that the student pilot reported a loss of engine rpm during the climb. The pretakeoff engine run-up (ground check) procedures in the OH for the airplane specified the use of carburetor heat to melt any ice that may have formed during taxiing. However, as noted earlier, after completing the run-up, the PIC and the student pilot delayed initiating the takeoff roll. Given this extended ground time after run-up, and based on the carburetor icing probability charts that indicated the conditions were conducive to the formation of serious carburetor icing at glide power, it is possible that carburetor icing formed, further degrading the airplane’s takeoff and climb performance.

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. Loss of control in flight during takeoff defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Aircraft capability › Takeoff distance › Related operating info
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Temp/humidity/pressure › Conducive to carburetor icing › Decision related to condition
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Temp/humidity/pressure › High density altitude › Decision related to condition
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Planning/preparation › Performance calculations › Pilot
  • Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Altitude › Attain/maintain not possible

Dual student

  • Certificate: student
  • Flight time: 79.6 hours in all; 15.9 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: April 18, 2023
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 194.1 hours in all; 1.4 in this make and model
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 3,527.9 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, May 31, 2023; 1,164.8 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,150 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320-E2A (piston); 1,187 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: KPRC Prescott AZ at 3:04 pm
  • Destination: KSEZ Sedona AZ
  • Flight plan: VFR
  • Runway 21L, 7,619 ft by 150 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 150° at 4 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 66°F (19°C), dew point 61°F (16°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.27 inHg
  • Observation at 7:53 am from KPRC

Weather report (METAR): KPRC 021453Z 15004KT 10SM CLR 19/16 A3027 RMK AO2 SLP181 60000 T01890161 51011

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1
Passengers3

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

10 documents, released by the NTSB on September 11, 2025. 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.