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

January 29, 2026 · Cessna 172 S · N969FG

New Castle, DE

Overview

Report Status
Probable Cause
Event Type
Accident
Date
January 29, 2026
Injury Outcomes
No injuries (2 uninjured)
Location
New Castle, DE
Aircraft
Cessna 172 S (2006)
Tail Number
N969FG
Operator
Infinity Flight Group
Injuries
None
Aircraft Damage
Substantial
NTSB Number
ERA26LA102

The pilots were performing a visual flight rules, cross-country flight at night. The pilots coordinated with air traffic control to perform an instrument approach to the destination airport’s runway 19 that would terminate in a circle to land maneuver to the opposite direction runway 1. The airport was equipped with three runways, two of which had been closed with an accompanying NOTAM issued due to snow and ice that was covering them. Both pilots were aware of the runway closures prior to the flight. During the subsequent right circling maneuver, the left seat (flying) pilot inadvertently aligned the airplane and began a landing approach to runway 32, whose runway edge lights were illuminated despite the runway being closed. The airplane was high on the final approach, so the pilot transitioned into a forward slip. The pilot further described being task saturated while she tried to focus on maintaining airspeed and alignment with the runway using external visual cues and did not recognize that the airplane was approaching the wrong runway. The right seat pilot described that during the left seat pilot’s turn to final approach, he had been looking inside at an electronic device for indications of nearby traffic, and when he looked out, he recalled seeing that the airplane was approaching a runway surrounded by bright lights, including an approach lighting system. Neither pilot recognized the snow-covered runway surface until after the airplane had touched down. During the landing, the airplane’s wings and propeller contacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The manager of the airport’s air traffic control tower stated that all the runway’s lights, including those surrounding the closed runway, had been illuminated at the request of airport operations personnel in order to help melt snow and ice around the lights. The airport’s operations manager stated that the airport had requested that air traffic control tower personnel leave the runway 1/19 runway edge and taxiway lights on, but did not request that the closed runways’ lights be left on. Neither the air traffic control tower manager nor the airport operations manager was able to provide documentation of any lighting requests that had been made. According to FAA order JO 7110.65BB Air Traffic Control, “Do not turn on the runway edge lights when a NOTAM closing the runway is in effect.” Additionally, the airport operations manager reported no lighted “X” markings had been placed on the closed runways, as those markings were typically only placed during temporary closures due to construction. Had the pilots verified the airplane’s heading during the final approach and recognized that it was more than 50 degrees different than that of the intended landing runway, it is likely that the accident could have been avoided. It is also likely that had the closed runway’s lights not been illuminated, consistent with FAA guidance to air traffic controllers, the pilots would not have misidentified and attempted to land on the closed runway.

NTSB Probable Cause

The pilots’ failure to properly identify the assigned runway during the landing approach, which resulted in the airplane landing on a closed, snow-covered runway. Contributing was the illumination of the closed runway’s edge lighting.

Full Narrative

The pilots were performing a visual flight rules, cross-country flight at night. The pilots coordinated with air traffic control to perform an instrument approach to the destination airport’s runway 19 that would terminate in a circle to land maneuver to the opposite direction runway 1. The airport was equipped with three runways, two of which had been closed with an accompanying NOTAM issued due to snow and ice that was covering them. Both pilots were aware of the runway closures prior to the flight. During the subsequent right circling maneuver, the left seat (flying) pilot inadvertently aligned the airplane and began a landing approach to runway 32, whose runway edge lights were illuminated despite the runway being closed. The airplane was high on the final approach, so the pilot transitioned into a forward slip. The pilot further described being task saturated while she tried to focus on maintaining airspeed and alignment with the runway using external visual cues and did not recognize that the airplane was approaching the wrong runway. The right seat pilot described that during the left seat pilot’s turn to final approach, he had been looking inside at an electronic device for indications of nearby traffic, and when he looked out, he recalled seeing that the airplane was approaching a runway surrounded by bright lights, including an approach lighting system. Neither pilot recognized the snow-covered runway surface until after the airplane had touched down. During the landing, the airplane’s wings and propeller contacted the ground, resulting in substantial damage to the right wing and fuselage. The manager of the airport’s air traffic control tower stated that all the runway’s lights, including those surrounding the closed runway, had been illuminated at the request of airport operations personnel in order to help melt snow and ice around the lights. The airport’s operations manager stated that the airport had requested that air traffic control tower personnel leave the runway 1/19 runway edge and taxiway lights on, but did not request that the closed runways’ lights be left on. Neither the air traffic control tower manager nor the airport operations manager was able to provide documentation of any lighting requests that had been made. According to FAA order JO 7110.65BB Air Traffic Control, “Do not turn on the runway edge lights when a NOTAM closing the runway is in effect.” Additionally, the airport operations manager reported no lighted “X” markings had been placed on the closed runways, as those markings were typically only placed during temporary closures due to construction. Had the pilots verified the airplane’s heading during the final approach and recognized that it was more than 50 degrees different than that of the intended landing runway, it is likely that the accident could have been avoided. It is also likely that had the closed runway’s lights not been illuminated, consistent with FAA guidance to air traffic controllers, the pilots would not have misidentified and attempted to land on the closed runway.

Flight

Event TypeAccident
Event Time20:44 EST
Nearest AirportNew Castle (0.2nm N)
Runway32
Runway Length4602 ft
Runway Width150 ft
Flight Plan FiledNone
Aircraft FireNo
Aircraft ExplosionNo

Aircraft

AircraftCessna 172 S
Tail NumberN969FG
Aircraft CategoryAir
DamageSubstantial
OperatorInfinity Flight Group
Operating RulePart 91
Engines1
Engine TypeReciprocating
Engine DetailsLycoming · IO-360-L2A · Reciprocating · 180
Seats4

People & Injuries

Injury SummaryNo injuries (2 uninjured)
Fatal0
Serious0
Minor0
Uninjured2
Total2
Crew 1Age 40 · First Class · None
Crew 2Age 35 · First Class · None

Conditions

ConditionsVMC
LightNight
Wind320° @ 4 kt
Visibility10 sm
CeilingNone
Temperature / Dew Point12 F / 1 F
Altimeter30.11 inHg
Observation Time20:51
Weather SourceWFAC

Appendix: Source Data