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.
Learn from the misfortune of others
Sign up now to receive NTSB Accident Reports and GA news in your email inbox. Join 110,000+ fellow aviators.
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.
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.
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.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Poor decision making took him out before he could load the aircraft full of passengers and do the same thing.
Very sad.