• 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 IMC kills two

By NTSB · November 10, 2015 ·

The non-instrument-rated private pilot departed on a cross-country flight in the Cessna T310R without obtaining a weather briefing from a flight service station or the Direct User Access Terminal System, and he did not communicate with air traffic control during the flight.

Existing weather advisories for instrument flight rules conditions along the intended route of flight had been issued.

Radar data was not available for the flight due to antenna site locations, so the airplane’s flight path and flight altitudes could not be determined.

Witnesses near the accident site in Junction, Texas, reported overcast skies, fog, drizzle, and windy weather conditions. They also reported hearing sounds consistent with an airplane circling and then sounds consistent with a rapid descent followed by the sound of an impact. Two people were killed in the crash.

A post-accident examination revealed damage and fragmentation to the airplane consistent with a nose-low attitude and high velocity at the time of impact.

Weather observations and satellite imagery showed that a layer of overcast clouds was present over the accident site with a base at about 800 feet above ground level (about 2,600 feet mean sea level) and tops at about 9,500 feet mean sea level. It is likely that the pilot encountered instrument meteorological conditions and subsequently lost control of the airplane.

The NTSB determined the probable cause as the non-instrument-rated private pilot’s decision to continue a visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the loss of airplane control. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to obtain a weather briefing before departure.

NTSB Identification: CEN14FA051

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. Rich says

    November 11, 2015 at 7:48 am

    One engine, two engines.
    Parachute or not, this was simple VFR into IMC
    with no weather briefing.
    Even the pilot too lazy to get a briefing can see out the window.
    Sadly for his passenger he was too bull headed to turn around.

  2. John says

    November 11, 2015 at 6:57 am

    The only different aspect of this self induced tragedy is the plane was a twin and lacked a BRS. How many Cirrus pilots have relied on their auto pilot to perform “stick ‘n rudder” tasks (i.e. FLY THE AIRPLANE) only to lose it at some stage of the flight? Wealth sufficient to own a very capable airplane does not translate well into judgement.

    • C J says

      November 16, 2015 at 8:47 am

      Back to John, makes no difference what your flying the BRS wasn’t meant to save “stupid”. A weather briefing could have been followed up with monitoring the weather along the route and perhaps turning around would have worked as well. This was the 3rd strike and your out scenario.
      The pilot suffers the melody of “Get-There-Itus” and an apparent lack of responsibility. You owe the passengers more than yourself. Fly the plane, fly the plane, fly the plane.

  3. Bluestar says

    November 11, 2015 at 6:13 am

    Personally I see no problem owning and flying that airplane without an instrument rating. As with any flying, stay within your limits, it appears he strayed.

  4. Chuck Bowser says

    November 11, 2015 at 5:34 am

    Why would a pilot with a highly capable light twin such as the Cessna 310 operate it without an instrument rating? There is no logic to explain such. Those who fly such aircraft most be serious about their flying. Proficiency is attained through serious dedication. There is no replacement.

    • Paul says

      November 11, 2015 at 9:32 am

      We can fly for years without need of an instrument rating or instrument flying proficiency simply by using the brains and two eyeballs God equipped us with. If not, one’s continued rolling of the dice will soon enough come up snakeyes whence he/she will lose same as this poor sap did.

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

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