ERA12LA445
2012-07-09 · Allentown, Pennsylvania, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport XLL
Current FAA registration · N680MA
- Make / Model
- CESSNA 172S
- Year of manufacture
- 1999 · 13 years old at event
- Engine
- LYCOMING I0360 SER (180 hp)
- Seats / Engines
- 4 seats · 1 engine
- Last airworthiness date
- 19990706
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A9044B
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The student pilot's failure to maintain directional control during a touch-and-go takeoff, which resulted in a runway excursion and a subsequent impact with a gopher hole, and the flight instructor's inadequate supervision of the student pilot and his delayed remedial action.
Factual narrative
On July 9, 2012, about 1700 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172S, N680MA, was substantially damaged when it veered off the runway during touch-and-go landing at Allentown Queen City Municipal Airport (XLL), Allentown, Pennsylvania. The flight instructor and student pilot were not injured. The airplane sustained substantial damage to the airframe and the horizontal stabilizer. The airplane was operated by Gateway Aviation under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a local instructional flight. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan had been filed. According to the pilots, they had been performing touch-and-go practice landing. After landing, around the time of power application, the airplane veered off the left side of the runway. According to a Federal Aviation Administration inspector, the airplane exited the runway into the adjacent grass, crossed a taxiway and intersecting runway, impacted an airport sign, and came to rest near a berm. There were three distinct tire marks noted in the grass from the point where the airplane initially exited the edge of the runway to a point past where the sign had been impacted, up to a hole in the ground similar to a "gopher hole." Initial examination revealed that the left main landing gear axle was impact separated and the associated tire was located about two weeks after the accident, in a ditch, approximately 300 feet from where the airplane had come to rest and was inflated. The 1655 recorded weather observation at XLL included wind from 240 degrees at 4 knots, visibility 10 miles, temperature 29 degrees C, dew point 12 degrees C; barometric altimeter 29.94 inches of mercury. According to maintenance personnel the airplane had been examined several times in the preceding two weeks for an unusual vibration emanating from the left main landing gear. The left main landing gear axle and associated parts, including the left wheel, were examined at the NTSB's Materials Laboratory. The examination revealed that the fractures were consistent with overstress from a single loading event. A detailed examination report, including photographs, is included in the docket that accompanies this accident. The FAA Airplane Flying Handbook, FAA-H-8083-3A, chapter 5, states, in part, the following about takeoffs: "…the throttle should be advanced smoothly and continuously to takeoff power. An abrupt application of power may cause the airplane to yaw sharply to the left because of the torque effects of the engine and propeller…" While the student pilot was conducting touch-and-go landings, about the time of power application after landing, the airplane veered left and departed the runway onto the adjacent grass. The airplane subsequently struck a sign, impacted a gopher hole, and came to rest near a berm, sustaining substantial damage to the airframe and horizontal stabilizer. Three distinct tire tracks were visible in the grass up to the gopher hole. A postaccident examination of the left main landing gear assembly revealed overstress fractures from a single loading event, which was likely the impact with the gopher hole; no preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation were found. FAA guidance indicates that an abrupt application of power may result in the airplane yawing sharply to the left. It is likely that at the application of takeoff power, the student pilot failed to apply an appropriate amount of rudder correction and the airplane departed the runway. The flight instructor did not recognize the student’s failure to maintain directional control in a timely manner and failed to take appropriate remedial. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Directional control-Not attained/maintained - C
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Student pilot - C
- C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Delayed action-Instructor/check pilot - C
- — Environmental issues-Physical environment-Terrain-(general)-Contributed to outcome
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2012_ERA12LA445.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 (runway excursion, 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
- 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.
- SKYbrary (Eurocontrol) 2024 · SKYbrary article Runway Excursion — SKYbrary Knowledge Base
SKYbrary runway excursion review — RE-OE (overruns) + RE-LO (lateral). Risk drivers: long landing, high approach speed, contaminated surface, tailwind, mis-set autobrakes.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.