ERA15LA274

Factual narrative

On July 19, 2015, about 1909 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172S, N962SP, registered to Richmond Pilots Corp, was substantially damaged when it impacted terrain while attempting to depart from Linden Airport (LDJ), Linden, New Jersey. The private pilot and three passengers were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the planned flight to Montauk Airport (MTP), Montauk, New York. The personal flight was conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The flight was originating at the time of the accident.The pilot reported that during takeoff on runway 27, a 4,140-foot-long asphalt runway, the airplane "felt heavy." He decided to reject the takeoff and land the airplane on the remaining portion of the runway. The airplane subsequently bounced two or three times before touching down near the departure end of the runway. The airplane continued beyond the end of the runway and impacted a fence before coming to rest upright. The pilot added that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane and he had calculated the weight to be about 30 lbs below the maximum gross weight of 2,550 lbs. The pilot held a private pilot certificate with a rating for airplane single-engine land. He reported 108 hours of total flight experience, all of which were in the accident airplane make and model, and 11 of those hours were flown during the 30-day period preceding the accident. The airplane was examined at the accident site by a Federal Aviation Administration inspector. According to the inspector, the airplane impacted a fence approximately 600 feet beyond the departure end of the runway. Both wings and the fuselage were substantially damaged. The airplane was nearly full with fuel and the wing flaps were in the retracted position, which the pilot confirmed was the takeoff setting via a telephone interview. The 1915 recorded weather observation at LDJ included wind from 290 degrees at 8 knots, visibility 10 miles, clear skies, temperature 36 degrees C, dew point 22 degrees C; and a barometric altimeter of 29.76 inches of mercury. Review of a takeoff distance chart for the make and model airplane revealed that at a maximum gross weight of 2,550 lbs, at sea level, at 40 degrees C, the airplane required a ground roll of 1,150 feet or 1,945 feet to clear a 50-foot obstacle. The data assumed calm wind a flap setting of 10 degrees extension. The pilot reported that the airplane felt "heavy" during liftoff from the 4,140-ft-long asphalt runway with the airplane near its maximum gross weight. He then attempted to reject the takeoff and land on the runway; however, the airplane bounced two or three times and then departed the runway, struck a fence about 600 ft beyond the runway end, and then came to rest upright. The pilot also reported that the flaps were retracted during the takeoff attempt and that there were no preimpact mechanical malfunctions with the airplane. Review of a takeoff distance chart for the make and model airplane revealed that, at maximum gross weight and with the atmospheric conditions that existed at the time of the accident, the airplane would have required a ground roll of 1,945 ft to clear a 50-ft obstacle. However, the calculations assumed a flap setting of 10 degrees and calm wind. Given that the airplane took off with an approximate 8-knot headwind, its performance would have been better than calculated. Therefore, it's likely that the airplane would have had sufficient runway to successfully depart the 4,140-ft-long runway with or without the 10-degree flap extension. The pilot's failure to use the flaps combined with the airplane being near its maximum gross weight likely resulted in the airplane feeling "heavy" to the pilot and led to his decision to reject the takeoff. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot - C
• C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Delayed action-Pilot - C
• F Aircraft-Aircraft structures-Wing structure-Trailing edge flaps-Incorrect use/operation - F
• F Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Configuration-Incorrect use/operation - F
• F Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Aircraft capability-Maximum weight-Not specified - F