On April 18, 2023, a routine flight lesson at Madison County Airport (UYF) in London, Ohio, took a tragic turn. A Cessna 172, registered as N734GB, crashed while on final approach, killing both the flight instructor and student pilot. The accident occurred at 6:20 PM local time, in what was likely the student’s very first instructional flight.
The Flight: A Promising Start
The 44-year-old student pilot had zero prior flight experience. His instructor, a seasoned aviator, held an Airline Transport Pilot certificate and multiple flight instructor ratings. With nearly 9,900 flight hours under his belt, he was in the process of establishing a flight school at Madison County Airport. This flight was likely meant to be the student’s introduction to the fundamentals of aviation.
The Cessna 172N, a widely used trainer aircraft, had recently passed its annual inspection just five days before the accident. The weather was clear, with 10 miles of visibility and a steady wind from 280° at 16 knots, gusting to 19 knots.
The Final Approach: A Critical Mistake
According to ADS-B data, the aircraft was decelerating on final approach to runway 27. When it was about 500 feet from the runway, its groundspeed was 54 knots (approximately 70 knots airspeed when adjusted for the headwind). By the time it was 150 feet from the runway threshold, the groundspeed had dropped to 46 knots, or about 62 knots airspeed.
The Cessna 172N’s stall speed with full flaps extended is 44 knots. At first glance, the airplane was still above stall speed, but its airspeed was decreasing at a dangerous rate. The aircraft’s flaps were fully extended at 40°, and just seconds later, it entered an aerodynamic stall.
With insufficient altitude for recovery, the plane descended in a left-wing-low, nose-down attitude, impacting the ground just one foot from the runway edge. The wreckage came to rest inverted.
The Aftermath: A Deadly Stall
Post-crash analysis revealed no pre-impact mechanical failures. The aircraft had been in working order, and all control surfaces remained attached. The flight instructor, sitting in the right seat, had ultimate control of the aircraft, yet the evidence suggests he did not take corrective action in time to prevent the stall.
Investigators found that the lap seat belts were intact, but the shoulder harness webbing had come unstitched in the impact. The aircraft’s damage profile, including the crushed nose section and the engine being compressed into the fuselage, confirmed a low-energy impact—consistent with a stall at low altitude rather than a high-speed crash.
Was Medication a Factor?
A toxicology report found that the student pilot had venlafaxine, an antidepressant, in his system. This medication can cause drowsiness and impaired cognitive function, which is why the FAA does not allow pilots to fly while using it.
However, given that this was the student’s first flight—where he had limited safety responsibilities—and that an experienced flight instructor was present, investigators concluded that the medication was unlikely a contributing factor in the accident. The real cause was a failure to maintain adequate airspeed on final approach.
Probable Cause: Instructor Error
The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) determined that the probable cause of the accident was the flight instructor’s failure to maintain sufficient airspeed. By allowing the aircraft’s speed to decay, he exceeded the critical angle of attack, triggering an aerodynamic stall at an altitude too low for recovery.
Final Thoughts
This accident is a somber reminder of the responsibilities flight instructors carry. The student pilot was taking his first steps into aviation, trusting his instructor to guide him safely. Unfortunately, a loss of airspeed at a critical moment cost both their lives.
For student pilots, this tragedy underscores the importance of understanding stall mechanics, maintaining situational awareness, and trusting—but also verifying—their instructor’s decisions. For instructors, it’s a stark lesson on how even a small lapse in attention can have fatal consequences.
By learning from accidents like this, we can help ensure that future flights end safely—with both pilots walking away.
6 Comments
For the mishaps on this website that you did a video review on YouTube would you please include the link? Thanks!
Yes! I didn’t make a video on this one, but if you go to the Aviation Mishaps homepage on the site, you can filter by “YouTube Videos” and that will show you the blogs I’ve written that have a YouTube video to go with it. Thanks!
As with the Hot Springs incident, the instructor failed to recognize and correct an error. This time the error was more obvious and to me, at least, inexplicable. This leaves me wondering how rigorous the requirements are for a pilot to be an instructor.
Hoover is a master investigator and teacher. He has made me more aware than ever to be very aware and careful to avoid the holes in the cheese from lining up. Hoover always presents his investigations in a fair and respectful manner. Excellent
Curious… Cessna 172 stall speed full flaps 40 Knots (56 mph), or power off, full flaps 47 knots (54 mph) at max weight. But AI Overview says minimum speed short landing 50-60 knots. Yet, short landing final approach speed in manuals of old was 1.2 stall speed; that is 64.8. Don’t know but in Cessna 172 back in the 60ties, on 500 coral strips, my approach full load was 60 mph. So… 62 knots with only 2 souls aboard a 172 seems ok. There seems to be something else at play here. Did the wing profile change in latter Cessna 172S? It did on Cessna 210. Landed and took off ok one day on the old model; next day flew in to the short strip in in a new model and it turned out to be a thrilling T.O.
Moreover: There is negative factors in slow but also in fast. I have seen some very bad results with student pilots floating over the runway on windy conditions. Took a new commercial pilot on a second Cessna 172 to an island strip early morning. I landed first, full load crosswind. Strip was wet and slippery. I called the airplane behind me and told him to approach at 60 mph. He did so at 70 or more. Touched down and as we watched in horror, past by us almost at the end of the strip going at quite a clip. Savior was a growth of ground vines at the end of the stirp that worked as a magnificent carrier cable. Pilot got off and was shaking so much he could hardly walk. In any case, pay attention to the aircraft manual data.
And finally, the statement: “its airspeed was decreasing at a dangerous rate” is curious, for how did investigators arrive at that conclusion.
Thing can become weird sometimes. Our base field was 3,200 feet sea level concrete… no sweat. One day, full load in a Cessna 172, I did not get airborne until 3/4 down the runway and then could not climb beyond ground effect till I ran out of runway. Ahead a 50 foot tree (obstacle) that I hade to fly past on the side. Then the city, low over the houses for more than a mile. Never figured that one out. Then, a private pilot rented a Cessna 177 from us, full load and same happened, except he landed on the roof of a house. No lives lost but other things where. In both cases engines were cheeked afterwards and engine power was ok. Soo… just be on the lookout for weird stuff.
Your presentation is certainly clear given your expertise and TSB information and I appreciate your allowing me to read these investigations.
I spent a lot of time in 172’s and unless it was absolutely necessary, (never except instruction or practice), with 16 to 19 it winds I would not have been on full flaps. I rarely used more like 20 dev. Its impossible now to know why a seasoned pilot would go full flaps when wind conditions indicate the aircraft is more controllable at a lower flap setting and you can fly the plane onto the runway in a controlled manner and take the wind more out of it.
Just my thoughts