Unresponsive Pilot, No Mayday | Cirrus SR22 Goes Silent Before Ocean Impact

The Expected Report Never Came

On May 6, 2022, Cirrus SR22 N24LA was approaching Barnwell Regional Airport in South Carolina when the normal rhythm of the instrument approach quietly broke down. The pilot had accepted the RNAV approach and acknowledged an instruction to report over the FATSU waypoint. The report never came.

Accident Facts

The airplane continued through the approach area, overflew the runway at about 2,200 feet mean sea level and then continued south for roughly 113 miles. Controllers repeatedly attempted to contact the pilot. Another aircraft was asked to approach N24LA and try to attract the pilot's attention. The Cirrus continued toward the Atlantic Ocean.

The NTSB investigation later found no pre-impact mechanical failure that would have prevented normal operation. Instead, the evidence pointed toward pilot incapacitation. A loop recorder implanted in the pilot's chest recorded a period of tachycardia during the period when he stopped responding to ATC.

When Silence Became the Emergency

The most revealing feature of the flight was not a distress call. It was the absence of the expected one.

A pilot flying an instrument approach is normally expected to comply with altitude, heading and reporting instructions. When the aircraft overflew the destination without the required report and then continued on a sustained track, controllers had to infer that something was wrong. The ATC response escalated accordingly: repeated attempts at radio contact were followed by an attempt to get another aircraft close enough to attract the pilot's attention.

That sequence is important because a silent cockpit does not necessarily mean a failed radio. It can mean the person who should be operating the radio is no longer able to do so. In N24LA's case, the aircraft itself continued to fly for a considerable distance, creating a dangerous appearance of normality.

The Heart Monitor Supplied the Missing Evidence

That evidence did not merely show that a cardiac abnormality existed. It provided a plausible physiological explanation for the sudden change in the pilot's behavior. The aircraft's continued flight and lack of mechanical abnormalities made pilot incapacitation the strongest explanation for why the approach was abandoned without a conventional emergency transmission.

The final investigation therefore separated the human event from the aircraft itself. The SR22 was still capable of flight. What disappeared was reliable pilot input.

ATC Saw the Track, Not the Cockpit

Controllers could observe that the aircraft had missed the expected waypoint and overflown the airport. They could transmit instructions and ask for responses. What they could not observe was the pilot's physical condition.

The attempt to use another aircraft was therefore a logical escalation. It provided an external way to determine whether the pilot could see or respond. The effort failed. The Cirrus continued toward the ocean until the flight entered its final descent.

The NTSB ultimately found that the accident resulted from pilot incapacitation. The lesson for ATC is not that controllers can always recover such a flight. Rather, the case demonstrates the value of recognizing abnormal behavior early, especially when an aircraft fails to perform a specific expected action while continuing to fly.

What the Records Show

The NTSB determined: “A loss of airplane control due to pilot incapacitation, which resulted in an overflight of his destination and subsequent descent into water.”

That conclusion explains the accident without requiring an unsupported mechanical theory. The aircraft did not need to suffer a major system failure to become a ghost flight. Once the pilot was incapacitated, the remaining automation could keep the aircraft airborne while the human decision-making layer was effectively absent.

Why This Incident Matters

N24LA is a strong example of how pilot incapacitation can develop into an apparently normal flight that slowly becomes unrecoverable. The first clue was simply a missing position report. The next clues were an overflight, radio silence and continued flight away from the destination.

For controllers, the case reinforces the importance of comparing what an aircraft is doing with what it was cleared and expected to do. For pilots, it illustrates how a medical event can leave an aircraft stable enough to continue flying even when no one is actively managing the flight.

The accident also shows why a medical finding should not be replaced by a mechanical explanation simply because the aircraft ultimately descended into the ocean. The investigation found no pre-impact mechanical failure that would have prevented normal operation.

Evidence and Findings

The NTSB's reconstruction shows how the aircraft's behavior changed without an obvious mechanical trigger. The pilot was initially following the planned arrival, accepted the RNAV approach and acknowledged the FATSU reporting instruction. After the expected report failed to occur, the aircraft simply continued through the approach and overflew the airport. That was the first major break from the expected flight path.

The airplane then continued for approximately 113 miles before crossing the coast and proceeding over the Atlantic. The sustained flight was possible because the aircraft remained capable of basic aerodynamic flight. The investigation therefore had to explain why the pilot stopped responding rather than why the airplane suddenly lost propulsion.

The loop recorder was decisive. The device documented tachycardia during the period of non-response, and the NTSB considered that cardiac event the likely reason the pilot became incapacitated. The absence of pre-impact mechanical malfunction strengthened the conclusion. The accident was not a case in which a mechanical emergency caused an otherwise healthy pilot to lose control; the evidence indicated that the pilot became incapacitated while the aircraft continued to fly.

The response by ATC is also worth separating into stages. First came the missing report and repeated radio calls. Then another aircraft was asked to approach N24LA and attempt to attract the pilot's attention. That escalation showed that controllers were no longer dealing with a routine communication failure. They were trying to determine whether a person was still actively controlling the aircraft.

The Flight Continued Long After the First Missed Expectation

The long continuation after Barnwell is another important part of the reconstruction. Once the pilot failed to report over FATSU, the aircraft did not immediately descend or turn toward a known alternate. It simply continued on its existing flight path. That behavior can make an incapacitated aircraft appear stable for a surprisingly long time.

The NTSB's evidence shows why controllers had to keep escalating their response. Radio calls produced no answer. A nearby aircraft was asked to attempt visual contact. The Cirrus continued over the Atlantic despite those efforts. Each stage reduced the probability that the pilot was merely distracted or had missed a frequency change.

The final accident was therefore preceded by a prolonged period in which the aircraft remained airborne but the normal human control loop had effectively disappeared.

• Missing an expected approach report can be an early warning of pilot incapacitation.
• ATC should compare actual aircraft behavior with the expected procedure rather than treating silence as a routine communication problem.
• Another aircraft can provide a valuable visual check when radio contact is lost.
• Automation may keep an aircraft flying after the pilot becomes incapacitated, but it does not restore decision-making.
• Medical evidence can be decisive when aircraft systems show no causal failure.

Sources

• Video source (ATC/audio reconstruction)