Premium research interface

The modern interface for aviation safety intelligence.

Search investigations, review source evidence, monitor watched reports, and trace long-term patterns from one calm, data-first workspace.

63k+
Reports indexed
1940-2026
Coverage
Recent
Last data refresh
Featured Report

Loading…

Loading featured report…

Loading…
Open Report

Safety trends by operating rule

Track fatal and non-fatal accident patterns across Part 91, Part 135, and Part 121 operations.

Loading trend charts…

Browse the aviation graph

Move quickly by aircraft, airport, operator, and time with indexes built for research, not wandering.

Last Data Update

By Decade

By Month

Aircraft Manufacturer

More manufacturers

Airports

More airports

Operators

More operators

About

Aviation safety reports, made easier to study

NTSB Reports is an independent research and search tool for public aviation accident and incident records. It brings NTSB aviation reports, structured fields, docket files, extracted figures, photos, videos, and update history into one searchable interface.

The goal is practical safety education: make it faster to find relevant investigations, compare similar events, review factual records, and understand the evidence behind probable-cause and preliminary reports.

The investigative work and source records belong to the National Transportation Safety Board and the published investigation record. This site is not affiliated with or endorsed by the NTSB.

FAQs

NTSB Report

February 12, 2023 · Cessna 172H · N3238L

Crosby, TX

Overview

Report Status
Final with probable cause
Event Type
Accident
Date
February 12, 2023
Injury Outcomes
2 injuries (1 serious injury, 1 minor injury)
Location
Crosby, TX
Aircraft
Cessna 172H (1967)
Tail Number
N3238L
Injuries
Serious
Aircraft Damage
Substantial
NTSB Number
CEN23LA108

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.

NTSB Probable Cause

The pilot’s delayed soft-field takeoff procedure, which prevented the pilot from achieving adequate airspeed and a proper climb rate resulting in a collision with a moving train.

Full 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.

Flight

Event TypeAccident
Event Time17:28 CST
Nearest AirportDunham Fld (1nm SSW)
Runway09
Runway Length2700 ft
Runway Width100 ft
Flight Plan FiledNone
Flight Plan ActivatedNo
Aircraft FireNo
Aircraft ExplosionNo

Aircraft

AircraftCessna 172H
Tail NumberN3238L
Aircraft CategoryAir
DamageSubstantial
Operating RulePart 91
Engines1
Engine TypeReciprocating
Engine DetailsContinental · O-300-D · Reciprocating · 145
Seats4

People & Injuries

Injury Summary2 injuries (1 serious injury, 1 minor injury)
Fatal0
Serious1
Minor1
Uninjured0
Total2
Crew 1Age 75 · Basc · Serious

Conditions

ConditionsVMC
LightDaylight
Wind230° @ 3 kt
Visibility10 sm
CeilingNone
Temperature / Dew Point64 F / 37 F
Altimeter30.10 inHg
Observation Time22:53
Weather SourceWFAC

Appendix: Source Data