• 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 to checkride fatal

By NTSB · November 2, 2015 ·

The solo student pilot departed from an uncontrolled airport in Delta, Colo., to rendezvous with an examiner for his private pilot practical test. Weather conditions were overcast clouds at 600 feet and four miles visibility. After takeoff, the Cessna 182E hit terrain about two miles from the departure end of the runway, on the extended runway centerline, killing the student pilot. The debris field was consistent with a high speed impact at a flat pitch attitude.

The student pilot most likely attempted to climb through the overcast clouds and lost control, then exited the clouds in a steep dive and was attempting to recover from the dive as the plane hit the ground.

The primary flight instructor said the student pilot had a “go-go-go” type personality and led a fast-paced life with his business. He intended to use the airplane for his business. Further, he was concerned about getting his examination done before the airplane’s annual inspection.

The CFI subsequently learned that the student pilot was under additional personal and business stressors. The decision to depart into poor weather conditions was most likely influenced by these life stressors, both self-imposed and external.

The student pilot had 0.6 flight hours of simulated instrument training recorded in his logbook, as opposed to the FAA requirement of three flight hours for the private pilot practical test.

The NTSB determined the probable cause of this accident as the student pilot’s decision to attempt flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in a loss of control and ground impact.

NTSB Identification: CEN14FA071

This November 2013 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. Walter LeBlanc says

    November 5, 2015 at 11:04 am

    The student should not have been signed off for the exam since he did not have the required 3 hours of simulated instrument time. This being just one of many reasons but no sign off and this situation would not have even been happening.

  2. Dave C says

    November 5, 2015 at 8:52 am

    The instructor should have not allowed the student to depart vmc into instrument meterological conditions given the weather at the time of the departure. The pilot must receive all information concerning weather, takeoff landing distances and performance FAR 91.103 and make a determination that the weather was below the minimum for VFR to depart safely. Additionally his instructor has an obligation to teach Aeronautical Decision Making and reinforce PIC attitude that leads to safety of all planned flights. Weather minimums for VFR are published in 91.155 and careless wreckless operation of an aircraft for violating a FAR is FAR 91.13. This is an unforunate loss of human life, however completely avoidable. A series of bad decisions with an sad ending.

    • Rich Burdick says

      November 7, 2015 at 4:58 pm

      I knew this person well, even got him started flying. The instructor did not sign him off for his check ride, the student had made his own arrangements.

  3. PAT WASSON says

    November 4, 2015 at 3:26 pm

    “Get- there-itis” strikes yet again. As we all know, being an expert in one area doesn’t make you an expert in all things.

  4. Paul says

    November 4, 2015 at 7:35 am

    We can rightfully point blame at the CFI as a contributing cause of this accident but certainly not the primary cause. That alone rests with the PIC, the solo student pilot. Had he made it to the DPE unscathed he would not have been allowed to take the practical test for failing to have the required simulated instrument time. Had he received the minimum simulated instrument time prior to the practical test, there’s no guarantee he would have fared any better an inadvertent or intentional flight into IMC. My guess is he wouldn’t have.

    • Dave says

      November 5, 2015 at 6:56 am

      Even if he did make it to his checkride unscathed, the examiner would probably have failed him before even starting once he found out the student flew through IFR conditions to get there.

  5. Randy Coller says

    November 3, 2015 at 3:00 pm

    Greg is correct. CFI had a responsibility to make sure applicant met requirements in FAR 61.
    ” probable cause of this accident” flight instructor signing off a student not qualified to take the practical test.

    If the application was done in IACRA, the program won’t allow non-qualified applicant to complete the 8710-1 form. If the application was done the old fashioned way (on paper) then CFI is partially to blame because he/she obviously didn’t not know the requirements to be qualified.

    CFIs are the “gate keepers” in this industry and need to be held accountable.

  6. Greg Ellis says

    November 3, 2015 at 5:48 am

    Not that this makes much difference, but the flight instructor has to endorse your logbooks saying you are ready to take the checkride, correct? And if so, why was he signed off without the proper number of hours, and if he was not signed off then he would have been rejected by the DPE due to the logbooks not supporting his readiness to take the checkride, correct? Not sure why this had to happen. Did the flight instructor sign him off as ready when he did not have the correct number of hours in simulated instrument time? I am reading a book regarding accidents and the author speaks of the fact that the FAA and NTSB reports don’t really tell you the whole story and I think this is one of those times.

  7. Rich says

    November 3, 2015 at 5:44 am

    Poor decision making took him out before he could load the aircraft full of passengers and do the same thing.

    Very sad.

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

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