A pilot-rated witness reported that the Cessna 172 was attempting to take off from Runway 19 at South Albany Airport (4B0) in South Bethlehem, New York. Runway 19 is 2,853 feet-long, 60 feet-wide, and asphalt.
About 15 minutes before the Cessna 172’s takeoff, another Cessna 172 performed a tailwind takeoff on Runway 19 uneventfully — however, that airplane started its takeoff roll at the beginning of the runway.
The accident airplane took off beginning at a runway intersection, with about 2,293 feet of runway remaining, in an approximate 9-knot tailwind, gusting to 13 or 14 knots.
The plane crashed in a field near the departure end of Runway 19. The private pilot and one passenger suffered serious injuries, while a second passenger incurred minor injuries.
The pilot told investigators that his injuries included a vertebrae fracture and concussion, and he could not recall the accident.
Examination of the wreckage by an FAA inspector revealed substantial damage to the left wing and fuselage. The inspector, who observed the flaps in the retracted position, did not note evidence of any pre-impact mechanical malfunctions.
Following the wreckage recovery to a storage facility, recovery company personnel were able to rotate the propeller by hand, confirm powertrain continuity to the rear accessory section, and attain thumb compression on all cylinders.
Review of weight and balance data for the airplane revealed that it had a useful load of 820 pounds. The reported occupant weights totaled about 740 pounds, leaving 80 pounds for fuel and baggage. The amount of fuel onboard and weight of the baggage was unknown.
Review of performance data from a make and model pilot operating handbook revealed that, at maximum gross weight and in the reported wind and temperature conditions, the airplane required about 2,300 feet of runway to takeoff and clear a 50-foot obstacle.
There were no performance data for any tailwind greater than 10 knots or any weight above the maximum gross weight.
Probable Cause: The pilot’s improper decision to attempt an intersection takeoff in a tailwind when the full runway in the opposite, headwind direction was available.
To download the final report. Click here. This will trigger a PDF download to your device.
This May 2023 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.
Makes me wonder about his Instructor qualifications??
Crazy! Poor decision taking off from an intersection, with a tailwind, and probably over gross weight even though fuel onboard was at least 13 gallons to bring gross weight to 2550 lbs for a C172N with a 180hp engine, 2300 lbs without the upgraded engine. NTSB report shows the 180 hp engine.
I bet he never tries that again.
Sorry for the injuries,But ALL preventable starts with his CFI these traits just don’t happen’3 people in a C150 fuel I think he should reconsider aviation.JFG CFII [85]
It was a C172 N model, not a C150. I have flown many C172s, and tail wind take-offs on a short runway (2300′) we rejected, even for training. On a 3500′ runway, we would do it to see how much runway we would “eat up” just getting to rotation speed with just 2 of us in the plane. Eye opening. Yes, we would reject the take-off with about 1000′ of runway left so we knew we could get stopped.
This is interesting practice that one should do with the plane one normally flies, with just you and an instructor/second pilot to call the abort point. And one needs to look at the POH/AIM for that aircraft to see what the restrictions are on tail wind take/off and Landings.
I literally don’t understand the takeoff plan this pilot used. Why would you do this?
Because he didn’t understand his airplane. It’s just like jumping into your old pickup and heading down to the bar, right? Two seriously injured people and another excuse for the insurance companies to raise their rates. Pathetic.
Regards/J