Pocatello RIP

That tragic picture looks like maybe a nose down plunge after a stall. RIP, and speedy recovery for the survivors.
 

“On August 1, 2026, a Cessna 172G Skyhawk, N1166F, crashed at McCarley Field Airport in Blackfoot, Idaho. According to available reports, the aircraft went off the runway and through a fence, coming to rest near Teeples Drive on the north end of the airport. The crash killed a 27-year-old man and seriously injured two passengers. The Blackfoot Police Department responded at approximately 11:00 p.m., and debris from the aircraft blocked the roadway. The Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board are investigating the crash.”
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdm
… and while the other wasn’t as tragic, this was the second crash of the day.

Very sad.. RIP.
 
Looks as if he did several circuits, so can't blame the 4,200 feet elevation, with about that long of a runway.
Maybe not an overrun, but a drop-in from above.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Jdm
Been following this one a bit. The father has been posting actively on Facebook. Curious on details as well.
 
According to the article, the accident happened around 11:00pm local on the 1st, so about 0500Z on the 2nd. The flight track posted above seems to correlate with around that time, though it loses coverage and track data at the surface, and the last bits of data only show a base to final turn on the south end, to runway 1. But it’s also 17 minutes before the reported 11:00 crash time (though it could have taken time to call it in and respond, so there’s some “-ish” factor there).

Either way, it’s hard to tell whether the crash was following a go-around, a touch or stop-and-go, or a full stop. To reiterate, that track posted doesn’t show the final moments of a crash happening as reported on the north (departure) end of the airport.

There’s no AWOS at Blackfoot, but for awareness, here’s the observations from Idaho Falls (23nm NE) and Pocatello (22nm SW):

KPIH 020353Z 19008KT 10SM CLR 27/M01 A2997 RMK AO2 SLP087 T02721006

KPIH 020453Z AUTO 16004KT 10SM CLR 26/M01 A2997 RMK AO2 SLP086 T02611006

KIDA 020353Z AUTO 20006KT 10SM CLR 28/03 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP098 T02830028

KIDA 020453Z AUTO 22007KT 10SM CLR 25/03 A2999 RMK AO2 SLP097 T02500028

Two things stand out to me. One, the density altitude would have been about 6500’ at U02, even that late at night. And two, the reported winds in the nearby area were out of the southwest. That doesn’t mean that they were necessarily so at U02 - we don’t have any confirmation one way or another which way the windsock was pointing. But if it was also out of the SW there at the time and they were using runway 1, with a 6500 DA and 3 (edit: persons on board), at night, the margin for error gets pretty thin.

For more awareness, runway 1/19 at U02 is a 4,300’ runway with a 2-box PAPI, 3° GP on the left side of runway 1.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Jdm
Kenny Phillips said:
Looks as if he did several circuits, so can't blame the 4,200 feet elevation, with about that long of a runway.
Maybe not an overrun, but a drop-in from above.
Click to expand...
... "circuits" as in doing touch & goes at high density airport at night?
 
ionel said:
... "circuits" as in doing touch & goes at high density airport at night?
Click to expand...
The pilot is from that area, and likely learned in that environment. And night is the best time for "thick" air. We'll assume he was already legal, if not proficient, at night flying.
 
Flying Keys said:
With a possible tailwind.
Click to expand...
One report said that he was pursuing a career in aviation. Wonder what stage he was in. This doesn’t sound like a mistake that a CFI would make. Max weight, short runway, high DA, T&G’s with a tailwind.
 
There’s enough of a time gap (4-5 minutes or so) between the final and departure legs of the two previous landings to make me think those were full-stop taxi back, or a really long stop and go, at minimum.
 
With the runway length & elevation I doubt if performance was great, 3 in the 172. I do understand he was local, familiar, knew the area & all. I didn’t look to see if runway 1 was better at night, may of been the slight tailwind.
 
Flying Keys said:
There’s enough of a time gap (4-5 minutes or so) between the final and departure legs of the two previous landings to make me think those were full-stop taxi back, or a really long stop and go, at minimum.
Click to expand...
I've never done night currency with any passengers, but if you aren't out of currency, I guess it's fine.
 
Jdm said:
One report said that he was pursuing a career in aviation. Wonder what stage he was in. This doesn’t sound like a mistake that a CFI would make. Max weight, short runway, high DA, T&G’s with a tailwind.
Click to expand...
I saw that the pilot passed his ppl checkride last week, so this feels like a celebratory take your friends up moment. My speculation, but maybe late Sat night was supposed to be for lower DA and less turbulence.
 
mattcoug said:
I saw that the pilot passed his ppl checkride last week, so this feels like a celebratory take your friends up moment. My speculation, but maybe late Sat night was supposed to be for lower DA and less turbulence.
Click to expand...
If that’s the case then bad decision.
Maybe never flew with more than two people also before.

New ppl is a license to learn not giving non pilots joy rides right off the bat.

Non pilot passengers don’t know what they don’t know. You have to think of their safety always.
 
bonefishpete said:
If that’s the case then bad decision.
Maybe never flew with more than two people also before.

New ppl is a license to learn not giving non pilots joy rides right off the bat.

Non pilot passengers don’t know what they don’t know. You have to think of their safety always.
Click to expand...
I will admit that I was one who, many decades back, took everyone for a ride immediately after getting my ticket. But my weather standards were (and still are) quite conservative; one solo flight in minimum VMC was all I ever needed to convince me.
Still, the guy made some laps, and it should have only been getting cooler.
 
Deja vu?
David7700

Post in thread 'Four Dead In A 172R Crash Near Cuyahoga County Airport, Ohio'


Altitude issue reported before crash that killed 4
Aug 27, 10:09 AM EDT
CLEVELAND (AP) -- Federal officials say the pilot of a small plane carrying four Ohio college students radioed the tower after takeoff to say he was having problems climbing and would be returning to the airport.

A National Transportation Safety Board spokesman says a preliminary report on the Monday night plane crash in suburban Cleveland should be ready within 10 days.

All four people aboard the plane were students at Case Western Reserve University. They planned to take a short sightseeing flight...
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

With friendly conversation going on, individual check list items can be missed.

An ordinary go around with Cessna flaps deployed can be a life ending event if not done quickly, and well.

Failure to return to takeoff trim puts the aircraft in that condition at takeoff, resulting in liftoff in ground effect, and inability to climb. This is only conjecture, the FAA will doubtless examine that control, and rule it in or out.

At the density altitude and runway length, lift off would be too far down the runway to get stopped, so the inclination of an inexperienced new pilot would be to keep trying to get climb. A more experienced pilot MAY have elected to stand on the brakes, and accepted a run off the end accident.
 
geezer said:
With friendly conversation going on, individual check list items can be missed.

An ordinary go around with Cessna flaps deployed can be a life ending event if not done quickly, and well.

Failure to return to takeoff trim puts the aircraft in that condition at takeoff, resulting in liftoff in ground effect, and inability to climb. This is only conjecture, the FAA will doubtless examine that control, and rule it in or out.

At the density altitude and runway length, lift off would be too far down the runway to get stopped, so the inclination of an inexperienced new pilot would be to keep trying to get climb. A more experienced pilot MAY have elected to stand on the brakes, and accepted a run off the end accident.
Click to expand...
I will say that from the wreckage pictures it doesn't look as if there was much in the way of flaps. Hopefully not a departure stall (was out practicing stalls myself today) but perhaps a survivor can fill in the blanks when they are a bit more healed.
 
Those 3 don't look like they fit in a C172 and the flaps look like retracted. I would say there's another level/final instruction we seem to be missing. Its teaching the student/pilot what they should and shouldn't be doing in the next say 150 hours. This is not the way to celebrate the new ticket.
 
If anyone is interested, the following is from the NBS forecast for U02, which can be quite accurate at close range.

6pm local: Temp 94°F, Dew 34°F, Wind 250@11-20 kt
9pm local: Temp 81°F, Dew 40°F, Wind 210@4-7 kt
11pm local: Temp 71°F, Dew 40°F, wind 180@4

I wonder if he started off doing full stop/taxi-backs and decided to try a stop-and-go instead.
 
It might just be a result of the impact, but the elevator trim tab is way high.

This one reminds me that I need to get out and practice some stalls and go-arounds myself.
 
KE5BM said:
It might just be a result of the impact, but the elevator trim tab is way high.

This one reminds me that I need to get out and practice some stalls and go-arounds myself.
Click to expand...
Could be that way due to impact, as you said. But if not, that would be a lot of nose-down trim.
 
Is it possible took off too high of angle, tail strike, broke fuselage then nosed in?
 
ionel said:
Is it possible took off too high of angle, tail strike, broke fuselage then nosed in?
Click to expand...
In a 172? Not likely. (I've flown mine at full gross, four on board. Rather sluggish, but did indeed fly.)
 
bonefishpete said:
If that’s the case then bad decision.
Maybe never flew with more than two people also before.

New ppl is a license to learn not giving non pilots joy rides right off the bat.

Non pilot passengers don’t know what they don’t know. You have to think of their safety always.
Click to expand...
That's exactly how I felt about giving rides early on. I flew by myself 95% by myself at first after buying my own plane shortly after getting my ticket. I learned so much and gained so much confidence flying by myself.
My wife was in no hurry to fly with me at first. I loved it when she would fly with me every couple weeks/month and she would say my landings improved each time she flew with me.
Didn't really give rides to friends until after a couple years of flying.

Who flew with me the most right after getting my instrument rating was my hangar neighbor. He is a standards check airmen with 45 years experience flying. I am so thankful to be able learn from him.
 
Last edited:
geezer said:
With friendly conversation going on, individual check list items can be missed.

An ordinary go around with Cessna flaps deployed can be a life ending event if not done quickly, and well.

Failure to return to takeoff trim puts the aircraft in that condition at takeoff, resulting in liftoff in ground effect, and inability to climb. This is only conjecture, the FAA will doubtless examine that control, and rule it in or out.

At the density altitude and runway length, lift off would be too far down the runway to get stopped, so the inclination of an inexperienced new pilot would be to keep trying to get climb. A more experienced pilot MAY have elected to stand on the brakes, and accepted a run off the end accident.
Click to expand...
I know all too well what doing a go arorund without bringing up the flaps (at least partially can do) in a Cessna. Almost failed my private checkride that way (and this was at BJC on a day that probably did have a non-trivial DA).
As for trim, while it can certainly be an issue in some planes, a skyhawk is benign enough that you can throw the thing around with it being completely mistrimmed.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top