The student pilot had planned the instructional cross-country flight from his home base airport to another airport about 100 miles away with an intermediate stop to practice landings. However, just before departure, the flight instructor changed the destination to a different airport that was located further away and in mountainous terrain. However he did not provide the student pilot time to plan the new flight route.
No flight plan was filed nor was there any record of flight following for the accident flight.
After conducting several landings at the intermediate airport in the Cessna 172, the flight proceeded toward the destination. The sun had set at this time.
The instructor told the student to fly a heading of 240° at 3,000 ft mean sea level (msl). The student asked the instructor about terrain elevation in the area, and the instructor responded that he was not certain of the elevations because the airplane was not equipped with a G-1000 navigation system.
The student pilot reported that there were no aeronautical charts readily accessible while in flight to reference terrain elevation, and no aeronautical charts associated with the accident area were found in the airplane after the accident.
The aeronautical chart for the area showed a maximum elevation of 5,100 feet, and a mountain near the accident location with an elevation of 3,700 feet.
The instructor then began to demonstrate the autopilot to the student, including various climb rates. The student stated that the airspeed began to decline and he asked the instructor if he should add power, which the instructor did.
The student reported that the engine was operating normally and responded to power inputs. However, shortly thereafter, the airplane hit a mountain near Hinton, Virginia, at an elevation of about 3,100 feet msl, which was about 300 feet below the mountain peak.
Ground scar and wreckage information indicated that the airplane hit the terrain in a wings-level attitude on a near horizontal flight path, killing the flight instructor and seriously injuring the student.
Post-accident examination of the airframe and engine revealed no evidence of any preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation.
Given the lack of onboard navigation charts for the area, the dark night conditions, and the instructor’s decision to change the destination and not conduct preflight planning for that leg of the flight, the pilots were likely not aware of the altitude of the surrounding terrain, which resulted in controlled flight into rising terrain.
The NTSB determined the probable cause as the flight instructor’s decision to conduct a night training flight in mountainous terrain without conducting or allowing the student to conduct appropriate preflight planning and his lack of situational awareness of the surrounding terrain altitude, which resulted in controlled flight into terrain.
NTSB Identification: ERA15FA046
This November 2014 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.
I think that in this case, the student should have been
the CFI and vice versa
In a like situation with me, I fired the flight instructor, canceled the flight [paid the dollar penalty of canceling with short notice by the FBO] and then fired the flight school after I demanded and received copies of my instructional records of flying through them. So yes, as a student pilot YOU ARE THEIR EMPLOYER for your flight training. If you don’t like what they’re doing for your flight training, SPEAK UP, you’re paying your hard earned money to learn a skill.
“The student asked the instructor about terrain elevation in the area, and the instructor responded that he was not certain of the elevations because the airplane was not equipped with a G-1000 navigation system.”
NOT CERTAIN OF THE ELEVATION? That’s criminal negligence. Every pilot, on every flight, must know the elevation of the surrounding terrain at all times.
And he blames this on the lack of a G-1000, incredible. The majority of aircraft and pilots have never been near a G-1000, yet they regularly survive their flights. Believe it or not you CAN fly safely without a G-1000, but apparently this “instructor” did not know this. He was no more qualified to be an instructor than I am qualified to be an astronaut.
Yes, I know, the instructor is not here to defend himself. And whose fault is that?
As a student coming out of a crash such as this would you be able to put your trust in another Instructor?
I agree with comments that criticized the CFI. In addition to his failures in flight, he exercised incredibly poor judgement by launching AT NIGHT with NO FLIGHT PLAN, without VFR FF, and without notifying ANYONE of the planned route and itinerary. See the quote below from the NTSB Factual report: The pre-solo student misplaced his trust, but still had the guts to speak up during the flight. I cannot, in any way, criticize the student for his lack of assertiveness. How was the student to know that such careless behavior and poor decision making as modeled by the CFI weren’t the accepted norm in general aviation?
“After the airplane had not returned to its home base airport, a search and rescue operation was
initiated the following morning after being reported by the student pilot’s father. The airplane was
located later that day, in a remote area of the George Washington National Forest. According to FAA
records, several reports of an ELT signal being audibly heard were reported to an FAA Air Traffic
Control Radar facility. The reports were passed from the receiving controller to their direct
supervisor; however, for unknown reasons the supervisor did not investigate the reports further nor
report the signal to search and rescue personnel until the following day, after the airplane was
reported as overdue. The ELT was found at the accident site connected to the antenna and the “ON”
light was illuminated. The ELT was later tested and emitted an audible tone.”
While theoretically ATC is supposed to alert SAR when they receive reports of an ELT… this is not the first time that they’ve dropped the ball. Filing a VFR flight plan is a MUST if not using IFR. Even if using VFR FF a VFR flight plan is a really, REALLY good idea. Plus assuring that someone ‘back home’ knows you will call after your ‘safe landing’.
This accident is so bizzare and stupid that you can not even comment on it
I have seen similar cases without fatalities where the instructor relies totally on the equipment instead of bringing a sense of caution into the cockpit. Even if the instructor knew the conditions forth coming why allow the student to fly without adequate charts. It appears that the student had more on the ball than the instructor, at least he was asking questions of the instructor. It would be interesting to know how low time and experience that guy had.
I agree with John Wesley for the same reasons but I have a question about the lack of charts in the airplane. If this was in instructional flight and the student had “planned a flight” how did he do it? Where was the chart or device he planned it on? How did he navigate to the intermediate airport for landing instruction without any charts or a G-1000?
The lack of competence of the instructor is incredible but unfortunately not that rare. Darwin wins again.
Student pilots have unlimited confidence in their flight instructor. Student pilots by definition don’t know enough to really judge a pilot’s skill, even a bad instructor has demonstrated basic skill at manipulation of the flight controls.
A student pilot, must act as PIC when deciding to NOT follow suicidal CFI instructions.
No charts, even if there had been a G1000, presumes that the electrical system can’t fail.
As a survivor, I hope the student has learned a great lesson, not all CFIs are really competent despite a big watch, sunglasses and an iPad.
The student pilot was paying for the airplane and instructor. He/she was the employer and as such should have fired the flight instructor on the spot and cancelled the flight. To be so passive as to knowingly and sheepishly allow a CFI with an obvious unprofessional cavalier attitude take them “right into the danger zone” and unnecessarily risk loss of their life is inexcusable. Some student pilots are obviously unequipped from a personality standpoint to assert themselves and just say NO when common sense is screaming to be heard.
Let’s not forget, the instructor is not here to defend or provide his imputed into the accident. Nonetheless the instructor is PIC, his decisions led to this unfortunate event.
The CFI may be PIC for the flight but he was not the employer for the flight. That distinction belongs to the student pilot who should have fired his *** for even suggesting they drive themselves into unknown rising terrain in the dark of night. What bleeping idiot would do that?
A bleeping idiot who didn’t know enough to realize he was being led into a dangerous situation. This idiot instructor could just as easily have killed him practicing stalls. Are you saying the student show know enough to realize the instructor is incompetent? Really! What world do you live in?
I agree with your.
There is no way for a student to know what he doesn’t know.
That is why he is the student.
If he knew all the stuff he wouldn’t need an instructor.
Sadly in this case he was worse off WITH one than he would have been without one.
Do you know how foolish you sound by stating the student should fire their instructor…….the student may have believed, (rightly or wrongly) the instructor had all the knowledge, familiarity and skills to instruct him for this flight. My point is the instructor can’t defend himself or provide additional input for this incident….. nobody wins,
This instructor almost murdered his student.
Is his flying school liable for the injuries and horror inflicted upon this student?
Who taught this instructor? Who assessed him? Who allowed this instructor to fly let alone instruct?
There is a trial of woe and incompetence and criminality behind this whole even that is mind boogling . . .
“The student asked the instructor about terrain elevation in the area, and the instructor responded that he was not certain of the elevations because the airplane was not equipped with a G-1000 navigation system.”
This is totally inexcusable. He was unfamiliar with terrain information and was not in possession of any charts or other aeronautical information that would have provided pertinent information regarding the flight, and he was an instructor! Because of an instructors cavalier attitude he was killed and a student seriously injured. This is very sad and it did not have to happen.
I hope many other instructors are reading this and hope that they learn from this not to get so dependent on technology that they neglect proper flight planning. This goes double for many younger CFI’s who may have never seen a paper chart or flown in an aircraft with minimal navigation equipment.
Come on, everyone knows how to use paper charts. No need for erroneous stereotypes.
Everyone does not know how to use paper carts. It wasn’t long ago that paper charts were an absolute requirement on charter and scheduled airline flights. Part 91 does not require charts despite the requirement that the PIC know all available information. Student pilots should act as pic, the CFI should monitor the the student’s planning and execution in order to develop PIC skill and judgement.
The FAA allows the use of Electronic Flight Bags on 135, 121 and 91 large and turbojet aircraft if the regulations on redundancy are complied with. Paper charts don’t have battery failure.
When in doubt, climb and head away from mountainous areas. Night flight demands more planning.
This instructor illustrated a pretty shocking level of incompetence and the fact that the plane did not carry a paper chart for the route should have precipitated a no-go decision – with or without a Garmin.
All that nice glass panel stuff is supposed to make flying safer, but too often we read about people killing themselves and/or others because the glass panel stuff was not working correctly; the pilot thought a glass panel was a ticket to ignore the weather; or the pilot simply did not look out the window. After all, what can go wrong when you have $50k worth of gizmos installed??
Regardless of the situation of the article, there is no need to claim young people don’t know how to read paper charts. That’s completely ignorant and rude.
Sorry Brad, he is right, I have been a CFI for 50 years, I am appalled at the level of incompetence in pilots today, especially those trained in the last 15 years.
So, you’re here to claim that every DPE is illegally passing young pilots? Based on your statements, YOU have been failing to correctly teach “young” pilots how to use a chart? Unless in your 50 years as a CFI, you only teach “old” pilots? I’m appalled at the stereotyping and arrogance spoken here. Absolutely shameful. I hope the above people will one day mature and will learn to respect fellow pilots.