CEN16LA379
2016-09-18 · Chesterfield, Missouri, United States · Serious · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport SUS
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's unstable approach and subsequent loss of airplane control during an attempted go-around.
Factual narrative
On September 18, 2016, at 2006 central daylight time, a Cessna 172S, N52265, impacted terrain during a go-around from runway 26R at Spirit of St Louis Airport (SUS), Chesterfield, Missouri. The airplane descended after it entered into a right nose-down turn while turning downwind for runway 26R. The airplane was destroyed. The commercial pilot sustained serious injuries. The rental airplane was registered to Christiansen Aviation Inc and operated by Air Associates of Missouri under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight that was not operating on a flight plan. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident for the flight that originated from SUS. A flight instructor at SUS stated that during the right downwind leg for runway 26R, the airplane's altitude was "erratic as it pitched up and down" with "large power adjustments." The airplane's approach seemed "very unstable." As the airplane approached the runway, it entered a go-around. He stated that the go-around was "just as unstable." The airplane had overshot the runway and was well left of the runway centerline during the climb out from the go-around. The flight instructor then ran into the flight school building where he worked in attempt to assist the pilot by radio. As he reached for the radio, he heard the airplane engine accelerate and then heard a "loud thud." He ran out onto the ramp and did not hear any additional sounds. He concluded that the airplane impacted terrain. The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Coordinator for the accident stated that the pilot was "coming in fast" on an approach to landing. The pilot then performed a go-around from runway 26R. When the pilot turned the airplane onto a right crosswind leg, he lost airplane control. The airplane impacted the ground about 150-200 yards northwest of runway 26R. There were no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal airplane operation. A requested written statement of accident investigation findings from the FAA Coordinator was not received. FAA provided photos showed that the airplane resting in an inverted orientation at the end of the ground scar and the right wing was separated at the wing root. The right wing was resting along the ground scar, and the left wing was attached to the airframe. The left wing flap was in the retracted position. The cockpit throttle control was out about ½ inch and the mixture control was in the full forward position. The cockpit fuel selector had both wing fuel tanks selected. The cockpit pitch trim indication was in the full nose-down position. The cockpit wing flap selector was in the 0-degree flap position. The standby altimeter indicated about 425 feet mean sea level and the altimeter was set to about 29.96 inches of mercury. The Hobbs meter indicated 2,729.9 hours. The tachometer indication was not reported and is unknown. It is unknown if the Hobbs meter sustained impact damage rendering it unreliable. Maintenance records recorded tachometer times and not Hobbs time. The last 100-hour inspections for the airframe and engine were at a tachometer time of 2,067.6 hours. A National Transportation Safety Board Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident/Incident Report (form 6120) was not received from the pilot. The commercial pilot was performing a night visual approach for landing. A witness on the ground, who was a flight instructor, stated that the airplane's approach was "very unstable" and "erratic," and that the airplane's nose pitched up and down as the pilot made "large power adjustments." He stated that the airplane then began a go-around, which he also described as "unstable." The airplane subsequently descended and impacted terrain. Examination of the airplane revealed no mechanical anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Pitch control-Not attained/maintained - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-(general)-Not attained/maintained - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2016_CEN16LA379.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around, maintenance). All research papers
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA) From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- Semantic Scholar 2026 · Article (Reliability Engineering & System Safety) Understanding human error in military aviation maintenance: The role of Performance shaping factors, cognitive workload and error orientation
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences) Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (Defence Science Journal) Modelling of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Using HFACS ME Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension and Bayesian Network
Aircraft maintenance is a complex task involving a skilled human workforce, spare parts, and various other resources. Human factors are an inherent element of the human workforce.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…