CEN20LA419 · Cessna 172S
Cessna 172S and Team Rockets F1 · Accident: midair collision on approach
Event
- NTSB case
- CEN20LA419
- Event typeAccident: someone killed or seriously injured, or the aircraft substantially damaged (NTSB definition). Incident: an occurrence that affected or could have affected safety, short of that. Glossary
- Accident
- InvestigationHow far the investigation had got when the record was published: preliminary, ongoing, final or completed. Unknown where the source does not say. Glossary
- Completed
- Event fatalities
- Unknown
- Ground fatalities
- Unknown
- OperationWhat kind of flying it was, grouped by the rules it flew under: airline (US Part 121), air taxi and commuter (Part 135), general aviation (Part 91 and similar), military or government. Glossary
- General aviation
- WeatherVisual meteorological conditions (VMC): good enough to fly by looking outside. Instrument conditions (IMC): cloud or low visibility, flying by instruments. Glossary
- Visual Meteorological Cond
Aircraft 1 · Cessna 172S
- Aircraft type
- Cessna 172
- Category
- Airplane
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- N108VK
- Operator
- Unknown
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From Lockhart Municipal Airport (50R), Lockhart, TXTo not recorded
- Aircraft age
- About 19 years (built 2001)
- Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
- Part 91: General Aviation
- Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
- Approach · VFR pattern final
- Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
- Midair collision
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Substantial
Aircraft 2 · Team Rockets F1
- Aircraft type
- Team Rockets F1
- Category
- Airplane
- RegistrationThe aircraft's tail number, such as N12345 or G-ABCD. Registrations are reissued, so the same one years apart can be a different aircraft. Glossary
- N540LK
- Operator
- Unknown
- Onboard fatalities
- Unknown
- Route
- From not recordedTo not recorded
- Aircraft age
- About 6 years (built 2014)
- Flight rulesThe regulations the flight operated under: in the US, Part 91 (general aviation), Part 121 (airlines), Part 135 (air taxi and commuter) and others; for flights abroad, the NTSB's coarser commercial or non-commercial code. Glossary
- Part 91: General Aviation
- Phase of flightThe stage of the flight when things started to go wrong: standing, taxi, takeoff, initial climb, en route, maneuvering, approach or landing. Glossary
- Approach · VFR pattern final
- Defining eventThe single coded event the NTSB judges best describes what happened (records from 2008 on). Older records name the first occurrence in the sequence instead. Glossary
- Midair collision
- DamageDestroyed: beyond practical repair. Substantial: damage that affects the structure, performance or handling and normally needs major repair. Minor: less than that. Glossary
- Destroyed
Cause areas
- Personnel issues › Action/decision
Approximate · Coordinates as recorded by the NTSB; no uncertainty radius is established.
NTSB narrative
A low-wing Team Rockets F1 airplane and a high-wing Cessna 172 airplane were involved in a mid-air collision on final approach for landing. The airplanes entered the downwind leg of the traffic pattern within one minute of each other, with the F1 in front of the Cessna. There were four other airplanes in the traffic pattern or communicating on the airport’s common traffic frequency at that time. Shortly after entering the traffic pattern, the F1 pilot announced and performed a right 360° turn to increase spacing with the preceding airplane. The instructor onboard the trailing Cessna could not see the F1 and asked if the F1 had completed the turn. The F1 pilot responded that he was about to turn base, but he saw a Cessna below him and that he would extend downwind before turning to final.
The instructor onboard the Cessna began a turn to base and reported that they saw the F1. About 45 seconds later, the F1 pilot reported that he was on final approach over a highway about 2 miles from the runway, which indicates he did not extend his downwind sufficiently to attain sufficient separation. The Cessna crossed the highway about the same time and also reported a 2-mile final. About 45 seconds later, the F1 pilot reported a 1 mile final. The instructor onboard the Cessna then reported a .8-mile final. Shortly after the last radio calls from the two airplanes, the F1 impacted the Cessna on the Cessna’s top left side. Both airplanes impacted the ground short of the runway. The Cessna flipped over and the F1 came to rest against a fence and caught fire. The Cessna sustained substantial damage and the F1 was destroyed.
The F1 pilot recalled an airplane making position calls on final, which he assumed was behind him. He said that he had a clear view of the runway while on final and he did not see any traffic between him and the runway. It is likely that the low-wing configuration of the F1 prevented the F1 pilot from seeing the Cessna below him. Likewise, the occupants of the high-wing Cessna were restricted from seeing the F1 above them.
Although the F1 pilot stated that he would extend his downwind leg, he did not extend it enough to gain safe separation from the Cessna, which resulted in the F1 and the Cessna arriving at nearly the same geographical point on 2- mile final at the same time. The standard position reports issued by both pilots were sufficient for the pilots to have had awareness of each other’s position on final; however, neither comprehended the conflict between their airplanes, possibly due to the high volume of radio calls from other aircraft in the traffic pattern and both pilots’ increased attention on preparing for landing.
Probable cause
The F1 pilot’s failure to see and avoid the lower altitude Cessna while on final approach for landing. Contributing to the accident were the restrictions to pilot visibility inherent to low- and high-wing airplanes, and both pilots’ failure to recognize the conflict that developed between their airplanes.
Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset
Sources
NTSB record CEN20LA419
- Event ID
- 20200928102041
- Case number
- CEN20LA419
- Dataset
- full-current
- Source SHA-256
- 5cf380f0061817c0331a6b2d8cc7e0ee3a79bea469a1001dc5c10e56f35f5ab3
Source notes (4)
- Unreviewed is an editorial label, not an investigation status. API-sourced is not report-checked or human-reviewed. Explicit event totals are used without summing aircraft injury tables; onboard allocation is withheld. Unknown values remain unknown. The operation category is mapped from the NTSB-reported FAR part and has not been reviewed.
- Filled from the NTSB case API where the bulk record had no value: local date, investigation status, cause areas. Values present in the bulk record are kept.
- The date is the local date; the NTSB stores the UTC date 2020-09-25.
- API snapshot SHA-256: edd985c1acc0c55a780ffce9a097242925b4605bdcd61aeb0b7fa1311c9b7f94; retrieved 2026-09-13T18:35:08.338Z.