• Skip to primary navigation
  • Skip to main content
General Aviation News

General Aviation News

Because flying is cool

  • Pictures of the Day
    • Submit Picture of the Day
  • Stories
    • News
    • Features
    • Opinion
    • Products
    • NTSB Accidents
    • ASRS Reports
  • Comments
  • Classifieds
    • Place Classified Ad
  • Events
  • Digital Archives
  • Subscribe
  • Show Search
Hide Search

Flight into freezing rain kills two

By NTSB · May 7, 2013 ·

Aircraft: Bellanca Viking. Injuries: 2 Fatal. Location: Rock Springs, Wyo. Aircraft damage: Destroyed.

What reportedly happened: The private pilot did not have an instrument rating. According to his logbook he had accumulated about 3,040 flying hours, including 1,330 hours in a Bellanca. The pilot’s initial plan was to make the cross-country flight on the day before the accident flight actually took place. The pilot decided to postpone the flight until the next day because of poor weather.

During the weather briefing the pilot interrupted the briefer, saying that he had a copy of the Terminal Area Forecast in front of him, and that he needed to learn to read it. Then, for about a minute and a half, the pilot asked the briefer questions about what specific numbers, letters, and abbreviations on the TAF meant.

The weather briefer advised the pilot that the adverse conditions would still be present along the route of flight the next day, including areas of clouds, low ceilings, precipitation, icing conditions, snow, and thunderstorms. There was no record of the pilot obtaining a briefing on the day of the flight.

Overlaying the airplane’s radar track on weather radar imagery indicated that, about 30 minutes after departure, the pilot encountered an area of precipitation where supercooled liquid droplets had been forecast. This most likely resulted in a very rapid accumulation of ice on the airplane. Soon thereafter, the airplane entered a steep uncontrolled descent, during which the outboard section of the right wing separated as it was stressed beyond the design limitations of the airplane. The airplane continued in a near vertical uncontrolled descent and impacted the terrain with a high amount of energy.

Post-accident examination of the airframe, flight controls, and the engine did not find any evidence of a pre-existing anomaly.

Probable cause: The pilot’s decision to continue flight into an area of known adverse weather, which resulted in an accumulation of structural ice that led to a loss of control and in-flight breakup. Also causal was the pilot’s inadequate preflight weather planning.

NTSB Identification: WPR11FA228

This May 2011 accident report is provided by the National Transportation Safety Board. Published as an educational tool, it is intended to help pilots learn from the misfortunes of others.

About NTSB

The National Transportation Safety Board is an independent federal agency charged by Congress with investigating every civil aviation accident in the United States and significant events in the other modes of transportation, including railroad, transit, highway, marine, pipeline, and commercial space. It determines the probable causes of accidents and issues safety recommendations aimed at preventing future occurrences.

Reader Interactions

Share this story

  • Share on Twitter Share on Twitter
  • Share on Facebook Share on Facebook
  • Share on LinkedIn Share on LinkedIn
  • Share on Reddit Share on Reddit
  • Share via Email Share via Email

Become better informed pilot.

Join 110,000 readers each month and get the latest news and entertainment from the world of general aviation direct to your inbox, daily.

This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Curious to know what fellow pilots think on random stories on the General Aviation News website? Click on our Recent Comments page to find out. Read our Comment Policy here.

Comments

  1. Richard says

    May 8, 2013 at 7:16 am

    Of course, the plane maker, engine maker, propeller maker, all instrument & accessories makers, and no telling who else will be the target of a lawsuit that the manufacturers will “settle” to keep a non-aviation understanding jury for awarding millions of dollars to the plaintiff(s). Why is it that the NTSB accident investigation’s probable cause of an accident can’t be used by the defendants in an aviation suit? This kind of B.S. is what drives up the cost of aircraft products.

    • Richard says

      May 8, 2013 at 7:18 am

      Should have typed jury FROM awarding. Sorry about that.

  2. Mike says

    May 8, 2013 at 7:08 am

    A couple of things really strike me …. over 3000 hours and he couldn’t read a TAF, also that many hours and to make such an unbelievably poor decision.
    The tragedy of the outcome so easily avoided.

© 2025 Flyer Media, Inc. All rights reserved. Privacy Policy.

  • About
  • Advertise
  • Comment Policy
  • Contact Us
  • Privacy Policy
  • Writer’s Guidelines
  • Photographer’s Guidelines