CEN17LA303
2017-08-04 · Marshall, Missouri, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport MHL
Current FAA registration · N3047J
- Make / Model
- CESSNA A188B
- Year of manufacture
- 1979 · 38 years old at event
- Engine
- CONT MOTOR IO 520 SERIES (285 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 1 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 19800129
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A33184
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's inability to accurately monitor the airplane's airspeed after takeoff due to an inoperative airspeed indicator, which resulted in the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed and his exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and the subsequent aerodynamic stall/mush and degraded climb performance.
Factual narrative
***This report was modified on March 8, 2018. Please see the docket for this accident to view the original report.*** On August 4, 2017, about 0900 central daylight time, a Cessna A188B airplane, N3047J, was substantially damaged when it settled into a bean field after takeoff from runway 18 (5,006 feet by 75 feet, concrete) at the Marshall Memorial Municipal Airport (MHL), Marshall, Missouri. The pilot was not injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by private individuals as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 137 flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight was not operated on a flight plan. The local aerial application flight was originating at the time of the accident. The pilot stated that the airplane was loaded with about 120 gallons of fertilizer and 54 gallons of fuel at the time of the accident takeoff. The pretakeoff run-up was normal. After takeoff, he reduced engine power for climb. When he did so, the engine "surged." He responded by increasing the throttle "a little," but the engine "surged" again. He subsequently applied full throttle, but was unable to maintain a positive rate of climb. The airplane settled into a bean field and encountered a fence before coming to rest in the adjoining corn field. The pilot informed a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector that the airplane seemed to be "sagging" after takeoff. The engine indications appeared to be normal before the accident. The airplane had a full load of fertilizer and fuel at the time of the accident takeoff. The pilot also informed the inspector that the airspeed indicator had been inoperative for some time. A postaccident engine examination conducted by FAA inspectors did not reveal any anomalies consistent with a preimpact loss of engine power. The wing flaps were positioned at 20 degrees deflection at the time of the exam. The airplane flight manual noted that the recommended takeoff wing flap setting for restricted category airplanes was 10 degrees. The approved takeoff range for normal category airplanes was 0 to 20 degrees. The information manual indicated that optimum takeoff performance at heavy weights is obtained using 10 degrees wing flaps. FAA regulations (14 CFR 91.205) require an operational airspeed indicator for civil aircraft operating under a standard airworthiness certificate. The accident airplane was operating under a restricted category airworthiness certificate and was not required to comply with that regulation. After takeoff for the agricultural application flight and when the commercial pilot reduced engine power to climb, the engine "surged." He increased the throttle, but the engine "surged" again. He subsequently applied full throttle, but he was unable to maintain a positive climb rate. The airplane gradually settled into a bean field off the end of the runway. The airplane impacted a fence before coming to rest in an adjacent field. The pilot stated that the airplane seemed to be "sagging" after takeoff but that the engine instrument indications appeared to be normal. Postaccident engine examination did not reveal evidence of any preimpact anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. The reason for the engine surging reported by the pilot could not be determined. According to the pilot, the airspeed indicator was inoperative at the time of the accident. It is likely that the pilot's inability to monitor the airspeed due to the lack of an operative airspeed indicator led to the pilot's failure to maintain adequate airspeed, his exceedance of the airplane's critical angle of attack and the subsequent aerodynamic stall/mush and degraded climb performance. 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-Angle of attack-Capability exceeded - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Climb rate-Not attained/maintained - C
- F Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Indicating/recording systems-Instrument panel-Inoperative - F
- — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Object/animal/substance-Fence/fence post-Contributed to outcome
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2017_CEN17LA303.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 (stall). All research papers
- NASA NTRS 2026 · Conference Paper Computational Analysis of Steady State Aerodynamics of Transonic Truss-Braced Wing Configuration in Deep Stall
This study presents a computational investigation of steady state aerodynamics of the Subsonic Ultra-Green Aircraft Research (SUGAR) Transonic Truss-Braced Wing (TTBW) configuration over a wide range …
- arXiv 2023 · arXiv preprint Automating Bird Diverter Installation through Multi-Aerial Robots and Signal Temporal Logic Specifications
This paper tackles the task assignment and trajectory generation problem for bird diverter installation using a fleet of multi-rotors.
- arXiv 2023 · arXiv preprint Variation of Critical Crystallization Pressure for the Formation of Square Ice in Graphene Nanocapillaries
Two-dimensional square ice in graphene nanocapillaries at room temperature is a fascinating phenomenon and has been confirmed experimentally.
- arXiv 2023 · arXiv preprint Polycrystallinity enhances stress build-up around ice
Damage caused by freezing wet, porous materials is a widespread problem, but is hard to predict or control. Here, we show that polycrystallinity makes a great difference to the stress build-up process…
- arXiv 2022 · arXiv preprint Enhanced Prediction of Three-dimensional Finite Iced Wing Separated Flow Near Stall
Icing on three-dimensional wings causes severe flow separation near stall. Standard improved delayed detached eddy simulation (IDDES) is unable to correctly predict the separating reattaching flow due…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2021 · Journal article (JAAER) Analysis on the Negative Emotional, Physiological, and Cognitive Responses Elicited from of the Activation of a Stall Alarm
Failing to identify an aerodynamic stall can lead to the inability of an aircraft to sustain flight. To warn pilots of an impending or fully-developed stall, many aircraft have safety devices installe…