No fatalities

Cessna 172S Strikes Trees During Night Approach at Groton-New London Airport (N2337F)

Groton, CT, United States

On November 19, 2008, a CESSNA 172S (registration N2337F) operated by Panorama Flight Services was involved in an aviation accident near Groton, CT. No fatalities were reported. Investigators recorded the probable cause as: The student pilot’s failure to maintain a proper descent profile to avoid trees during the night visual approach and the flight instructor’s inadequate oversight. This summary draws on records from NTSB; 12 related events involving the same aircraft type or operator are linked below.

SourcesNTSBPrimary reportUpdated 2026-08-03Data APIEditorial standards

On November 19, 2008, a Cessna 172S (N2337F) impacted trees during a night traffic pattern approach to Groton-New London Airport, Connecticut. The flight instructor and student pilot sustained minor injuries. A NOTAM indicated the PAPI was out of service.

Accident Details

On November 19, 2008, at 1833 eastern standard time, a Cessna 172S, registration N2337F, was substantially damaged when it struck trees during a night traffic pattern approach to Groton-New London Airport (GON) in Groton, Connecticut. The aircraft was engaged in an instructional flight under 14 CFR Part 91, having originated from Westchester County Airport (HPN) in White Plains, New York. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The certificated flight instructor and certificated student pilot incurred minor injuries.

Flight Instructor and Student Pilot Accounts

The student pilot, seated in the left seat, reported practicing full stop landings at Groton. After taking off from runway 33 for his third circuit at approximately 1825, he stated that on final approach he "suddenly lost sight of the runway and went into the trees." The flight instructor, who was in the right seat, noted that while on final approach to runway 33, he looked at the airspeed indicator and when he looked back up, he saw only trees. He added that the airplane appeared "lined up properly and centered on the runway."

Wreckage Examination

Runway 33 is 4,000 feet long and 100 feet wide, with an elevation of 6 feet above mean sea level (msl). The runway threshold was displaced 205 feet due to trees. A 3.5-degree Precision Approach Path Indicator (PAPI) normally provided visual glideslope information, but a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM) was in effect indicating the PAPI was out of service. A previous flight check had revealed that tree heights obscured the PAPI on final approach; although trees had been cut to alleviate the problem, they had not been cut sufficiently to eliminate the need for the NOTAM.

An FAA inspector examined the wreckage site and found that the airplane impacted 30- to 40-foot trees approximately 1/4 mile from the runway, generally aligned with it. The trees were located in a hilly, heavily wooded area at an elevation of about 200 feet msl. Tree damage extended for about 100 feet and was aligned toward runway 33. The engine was separated from the fuselage, which was "severely crushed and twisted." The tail section was damaged, with the rudder and elevator twisted. The left door was missing from the fuselage, and the cabin compartment was "somewhat intact."

Cockpit and Restraint System

A Survival Factors Group documented the three-point inflatable (airbag) restraint system. The student pilot, seated in the left seat, was 6 feet 9 inches tall and weighed 290 pounds; the flight instructor, in the right seat, was 6 feet 4 inches tall and weighed 185 pounds. The cockpit examination revealed that the trim control switch plate on the left side control column was fractured, exposing trim electrical wires. The throttle lever was bent inboard toward the mixture control, and the adjacent mixture lever was bent inboard toward the throttle lever. The flap lever on the right side was bent downward, and the parking brake bracket was fractured and bent rearward. The fuse panel on the right lower side of the instrument panel was compressed forward and fractured. The left pilot seat was locked into the 11th pin hole back from full forward, and the right seat was locked into the 9th pin hole back from full forward; no deformation was noted on the seats. The three-point AmSafe restraints were intact with no evidence of trauma, but the webbing on each shoulder restraint showed a thin area of stress consistent with having been worn. Both airbags deployed with intact stitching and seams; the left airbag had small black scuff marks on the pilot's side, and the right airbag had black scuff marks on the instrument panel side. Both pilots were soaked with fuel but incurred no broken bones or other serious injuries.

Weather and Lighting Conditions

No preaccident mechanical anomalies were reported by the pilots. Weather reported at the airport at 1856 included winds from 330 degrees true at 8 knots, a few clouds at 12,000 feet, and visibility 10 statute miles. According to U.S. Naval Observatory data, sunset occurred at 1625, and the end of civil twilight occurred at 1655.

Contributing factors

Causes

Descent/approach/glide path — Not attained/maintainedStudent pilotInstructor/check pilot

Other contributing factors

Effect on operationContributed to outcome

All Cessna 172 accidents →

Frequently asked questions

What happened in the 19 Nov 2008 CESSNA 172S accident near Groton, CT?

On November 19, 2008, a Cessna 172S (N2337F) impacted trees during a night traffic pattern approach to Groton-New London Airport, Connecticut. The flight instructor and student pilot sustained minor injuries. A NOTAM indicated the PAPI was out of service.

Were there any fatalities in the 19 Nov 2008 CESSNA 172S accident?

No fatalities were recorded in this accident.

What aircraft was involved and where did it happen?

The accident on 19 Nov 2008 involved a CESSNA 172S, registration N2337F, operated by Panorama Flight Services, at Groton, CT.

What was the probable cause of the accident?

The student pilot’s failure to maintain a proper descent profile to avoid trees during the night visual approach and the flight instructor’s inadequate oversight.