CEN23LA108

Factual narrative

On February 12, 2023, about 1728 central standard time, a Cessna 172H airplane, N3238L, sustained substantial damage when it was involved in an accident near Crosby, Texas. The pilot sustained serious injuries, and the passenger sustained minor injuries. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. According to the pilot, he and the passenger had landed earlier that day to discuss some upcoming airplane maintenance items with the owner of the private airstrip. Being unfamiliar with the 2,700 ft long airstrip, the pilot asked the owner about the best direction to complete the takeoff for the return flight. The owner advised to depart runway 9, and that a railroad track, located about 300 ft off the departure end of the dry grass airstrip, would not be a factor. The pilot reported that during the takeoff roll, the soft terrain “seemed to impede our speed somewhat, so I decided to perform a soft field takeoff in ground effect.” About half the distance down the airstrip, the pilot considered aborting the takeoff because he was concerned the airplane was not gaining enough airspeed to climb and avoid a moving train that was on the railroad track. However, he did not abort the takeoff as he thought he would not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with the train. As the airplane neared the moving train, the pilot pulled back the control yoke to initiate a climb; however, the airplane’s right main landing gear contacted the moving train. The airplane then nosed down, impacted terrain, and came to rest inverted. The pilot stated that this was the first time he had operated an airplane at that airstrip and it had been about 4 years since he performed a soft-field takeoff. A witness, who frequently operated his airplane at the airstrip, reported that it appeared the pilot was initially back taxing the airplane for takeoff on runway 27 because the pilot did not apply full power, and the airplane was slowly accelerating down the runway. The witness then realized the pilot was attempting to take off after the airplane’s airspeed slowly increased. He stated the airplane never developed “flying airspeed,” and as the airplane approached the moving train it rapidly pitched up, stalled, and impacted the train. Postaccident examination of the airplane showed substantial damage to the fuselage and both wings. Flight control continuity was established from the cockpit to all flight control surfaces. The engine was partially separated from the airplane, and both propeller blades displayed leading edge gouging, forward twist deformation, chordwise scratching, and both blade tips were separated. The wing flaps were in the retracted position. The examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. The pilot estimated the airplane’s weight was about 300 pounds less than the maximum gross weight. The manufacturer’s specifications predicted that the takeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was 1,095 ft. The pilot operating handbook recommended increasing takeoff distance by 7% for operation on a dry, grass runway. Based on the ambient temperature and wind conditions at the time of the accident, predicted takeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was about 1,200 ft. The Federal Aviation Administration Airplane Flying Handbook (FAA-H-8083-38) contains the following information for a soft-field takeoff: After the airplane becomes airborne, the pilot should gently lower the nose with the wheels clear of the surface to allow the airplane to accelerate to Vy, or Vx if obstacles must be cleared. … An attempt to climb prematurely or too steeply may cause the airplane to settle back to the surface as a result of the loss of ground effect. … During the transition out of the ground effect area, the pilot should not attempt to climb out of ground effect before reaching the sufficient climb airspeed, as this may result in the airplane being unable to climb further, even with full power applied. Therefore, it is essential that the airplane remain in ground effect until at least Vx is reached. The pilot was performing a soft-field takeoff from a 2,700 ft soft, dry grass runway. According to the pilot, during the takeoff roll the soft terrain seemed to impede his airspeed, so he decided to perform a soft-field takeoff in ground effect. About half the distance down the airstrip, the pilot considered aborting the takeoff because he was concerned the airplane was not gaining enough airspeed to climb and avoid a moving train that was on the railroad track. He ultimately did not abort the takeoff, as he thought he would not be able to stop in time to avoid a collision with the train. As the airplane neared the moving train, the pilot pulled up the control yoke to initiate a climb; however, the airplane’s right main landing gear contacted the moving train. The airplane nosed down, impacted terrain, and came to rest inverted. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the fuselage and wings. A pilot-rated witness stated that it did not appear the airplane reached proper airspeed during the takeoff. Postaccident examination revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the airplane’s weight and the ambient conditions, the manufacturer’s predicted takeoff distance to clear a 50 ft obstacle was about 1,200 ft. It is likely the pilot’s delayed decision to perform a soft-field takeoff procedure resulted in the airplane not adequately accelerating to a proper airspeed and climb rate. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Climb rate-Not attained/maintained
• — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Delayed action-Pilot