ERA18LA233

Factual narrative

On August 26, 2018, about 1610 eastern daylight time, a Cessna 172M, N1537U, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Quinton, Virginia. The student pilot was seriously injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 instructional flight. According to the flight school owner, earlier on the day of the accident, the student had practiced maneuvers in the accident airplane with his flight instructor. Later that day, he took off for the (solo) accident flight destined for New Kent County Airport (W96), Quinton, Virginia. A witness, who was located outside W96’s main hangar at the time of the accident, reported that he heard loud “engine noise,” looked up, and then saw the airplane in a steep, left turn with the “nose about 40° down.” The airplane then descended out of his view behind a hangar, and shortly thereafter, he heard the sound of impact. The witness did not report seeing the airplane perform a go-around or touch-and-go landing before seeing it in the turn. The flight school owner also reported that a flight school policy prohibited student pilots from conducting touch-and-go landings during solo cross-country flights. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane had struck a power line about 700 ft left of the runway centerline at midfield and then impacted terrain and three different sections of fencing while crossing a road before coming to rest nose down in grass adjacent to the fixed-base operator’s parking lot. The wreckage path was 65 ft long and oriented on a magnetic heading of about 85°, which was about the opposite direction of the runway heading. All the airplane’s major components were present at the accident site. The forward fuselage was crushed aft and was in a 90° nosedown attitude. The empennage was completely separated just aft of the rear window and folded downward relative to the fuselage, and the tail was resting on the ground. Both wings were substantially damaged and crushed aft, and the left wing was partially separated near its root. An outboard 3-ft-long section of the left wing and aileron was separated from the remainder of the wing. All flight controls remained attached to the airplane, and flight control continuity was established from the cockpit to the control surfaces. The flaps were found retracted, and the elevator trim tab actuator was found extended about 1 1/2 inches, which is about 5° trailing edge up (a slightly airplane nose-down position). The engine throttle, mixture, and carburetor heat controls were found in the “full-forward” position. The fuel selector was found in the “both” position. Both wing fuel tank outlet screens and the fuel strainer were free of debris. Engine crankshaft and valvetrain continuity were confirmed. Both magnetos produced spark on all towers. The sparkplugs exhibited normal wear and coloration consistent with normal engine operation with some corrosion (rust) present. Thumb compression and suction were confirmed for all the engine cylinders. The air filter was free of debris. One propeller blade was bent rearward about 80° (12 inches from the hub), and the other blade was bent rearward about 10° (30 inches from the hub). Both blades exhibited leading-edge polishing and gouging and chordwise scratching. The student pilot was on the first leg of a solo cross-country flight. A witness at the destination airport reported that he heard loud “engine noise,” looked up, and then saw the airplane about midfield in a steep, left descending turn with the “nose about 40° down.” The airplane then descended out of his view behind a hangar, and shortly thereafter, he heard the sound of impact. Examination of the accident site revealed that the airplane had struck a power line about 700 ft left of the runway centerline at midfield, impacted terrain and three different sections of fencing, and then came to rest nose down. During postaccident examination of the airplane, the throttle control was found in the full-forward position, and the pitch trim was found in a slightly nose-down position. Postaccident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preaccident mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. According to the flight school owner, a flight school policy prohibited students from conducting touch-and-go landings on solo cross-country flights. Given this policy and the postaccident throttle position, it is likely that the student was conducting a go-around and that he lost airplane control during the initial climb. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
• — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-(general)-Not attained/maintained