Crash After Pilot Self-Induced Pressure to Fly in Poor Weather

A VFR Departure From Centennial Airport Toward Grand Junction

Aircraft damage: Destroyed Departure: Denver-Centennial Airport, (APA) Destination: Grand Junction-Walker Field, (GJT) The instrument-rated private pilot departed on a visual flight rules cross-country flight just before the end of civil twilight. After departing to the north, the pilot turned onto a left downwind to depart the area toward the south. The controller advised the pilot to stay west of the extended runway centerline, which the pilot acknowledged.

However, about two minutes after takeoff, the airplane turned east and crossed the extended centerline. After crossing the centerline, the controller asked the pilot to state his intentions, and the pilot replied that he was going to return to the airport. The airplane then turned back toward the airport and began tracking west toward the extended centerline.

The NTSB final report WPR17FA066 is explicit about the accident sequence. The pilot departed Centennial at night on a VFR flight toward Grand Junction. Shortly after departure, the airplane deviated from the controller’s instruction to remain west of the extended centerline and then turned back toward the airport. Radar and witness evidence indicated that the aircraft entered clouds south of the airport.

Radar Contact Lost, Wreckage Scattered Over 1,200 Feet

Radar contact was lost several minutes later. The airplane impacted a field about 2.5 miles south of the approach end of the runway. The impact resulted in massive fragmentation, with debris scattered over about 1,200 feet.

The damage to the airplane and the ground scars at the accident site were consistent with the airplane impacting in a right wing low, nose low attitude with relatively high energy. A post-accident examination of the engine and propeller assembly revealed no preimpact anomalies that would have prevented normal operation. The signatures were consistent with the engine producing power and the propeller developing thrust at the time of impact.

Although the massive fragmentation prevented functional testing of the flight controls, there was no damage or failure suggesting preimpact anomalies with the airframe or flight controls. While visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the airport, statements from two pilots flying instrument approaches to runway 35R suggested that the pilot likely encountered and was flying in the clouds to the south of the airport just before the accident. A review of radar data and voice communications revealed that the instructions issued by the controller to the pilot were reasonable and in accordance with air traffic control procedures.

The engine and propeller showed no pre-impact anomaly that would have prevented normal operation. The aircraft was also found to have been about 300 pounds over maximum gross weight and forward of the published center-of-gravity limit. Those facts matter because they reduced performance margins while the pilot was already operating at night over mountainous terrain.

Why the Pilot Didn't Comply With Instructions

Investigators were unable to determine why the pilot did not comply with these instructions. The accident flight was the airplane’s first flight after an annual inspection, and the pilot was flying to meet his family for an event in another state. It is likely that the pilot was experiencing self-induced pressure to complete the flight as planned to maintain the family's schedule of events.

As a result, the pilot chose to depart on the visual flight rules flight over mountainous terrain at night in marginal weather conditions. The pilot’s logbook was not recovered, so the recency of his instrument flight experience could not be determined. Based on the reported weather conditions, the location and fragmentation of the wreckage, and radar data, it is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation shortly after entering the clouds, which resulted in a loss of control and descent into terrain.

The reason for the pilot's stated intention to return to the airport after takeoff could not be determined, but it is possible that he became distracted, and that distraction contributed to his disorientation and loss of control. Probable Cause: The pilot’s loss of control due to spatial disorientation. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s self-induced pressure to fly the airplane at night in marginal weather conditions.

The NTSB probable cause was the pilot’s failure to maintain control after entering IMC, resulting in an exceedance of critical angle of attack and an aerodynamic stall. The Board identified the pilot’s personal pressure to complete the flight despite the weather as a contributing factor. This is a specific finding, not a generic statement about ‘get-there-itis.’

Sources and investigation material

• NTSB investigation report (CAROL, PDF)

Accident Facts