Over the years I’ve been paying attention to such things, one of the most common accident causes among general aviation operations is continued VFR flight into instrument conditions, typically followed by in-flight loss of control (LOC-I) or controlled flight into terrain (CFIT). Or both. It’s long been a sobering, go-to, all-encompassing crash finding among accident investigators.
Improved flight instrumentation and situational awareness devices—along with reliable autopilots for those VFR-only pilots willing to break a few rules—seem to have reduced their frequency over the years, especially since the days when the typical personal airplane lacked either a full set of flight instruments or reliable navigation equipment. But VFR-into-IMC accidents still happen and, when they do, they’re more likely than many other accident causes to be fatal.
These accidents typically don’t just happen: the accident chain concept is a real thing. It’s typical for the LOC-I and/or CFIT outcome to be the final scene of a complex story consisting of several events or characteristics. External pressures are one; failure to obtain a weather briefing often is another. Then there’s inadequate training (e.g., lack of an instrument rating). You can throw into that mix all sorts of other factors detrimental to safely completing a planned flight.
Of course, just like no one plans to crash, no one really plans to continue from visual conditions into the instrument kind with outcomes resulting in an NTSB report. The pilot typically thinks the poor weather is a temporary thing they can fly out of, that there’s good VFR on the other side of this cloud. That presumes the IMC encounter is inadvertent; some are intentional. We all probably know a VFR-only pilot flying a well-equipped airplane who always seems to find visual conditions when they need them so they can complete the flight.
Another way to become an accident statistic by inadvertently flying into IMC is to attempt a 180-degree turn back to better weather, but lose altitude in the maneuver and roll out too close to rising terrain, as likely happened in this month’s accident.
Background
On February 27, 2023, at about 1656 Eastern time, a Cessna 150G was substantially damaged when it collided with terrain near Hillsville, Virginia. The solo commercial pilot/flight instructor (male, 74) was fatally injured. Instrument conditions prevailed.
A friend of the accident pilot reported that the pilot flew from Twin County Airport (KHLX) in Hillsville, Virginia, to Burlington/Alamance Regional Airport (KBUY) in Burlington, North Carolina, a distance of about 78 nm, to pick up parts for an engine the pilot was working on. A witness reported speaking to the owner of the shop where the pilot was going to pick up the engine parts, who confirmed the pilot arrived to pick up the parts and subsequently departed.
According to a GPS device carried in the accident airplane, which was examined by the NTSB, the airplane departed KBUY at 1612. The pilot flew a nearly direct route toward KHLX. About 15 miles from the destination, at 1653, the airplane began flying over mountainous terrain. Then, the airplane entered a descending 540-degree left turn (1.5 revolutions) until the flight track straightened and it reversed course to a southeasterly heading. The GPS device revealed that the airplane descended from about 3250 feet msl to 3000 feet—about 200 feet agl—during the final minute of flight. The final GPS data point was about 650 feet from where the main wreckage was located.
The FAA issued an alert notice (ALNOT) at 1914 after family and friends reported the airplane missing. The airplane was located by a private citizen about 1030 the following day.
Investigation
A review of the pilot’s logbook revealed he only documented flight reviews, the most recent of which was on March 20, 2022. At his most recent medical exam, on June 20, 2022, the pilot reported 10,000 flight hours, of which 150 were in the six months before the examination.
A review of preflight weather briefing information revealed that the pilot did not obtain preflight information from Leidos Flight Services or ForeFlight. If he had, he likely would have been advised of Airmets valid for the accident location advising of in-flight icing and moderate turbulence at the surface, along with low-level wind shear, instrument conditions and mountain obscuration. Other forecasts for the area and time of passing depicted gusty surface winds of 15-25 knots with rain showers.
At 1655, the automated weather observation at KHLX included visibility of 1¾ statute miles in mist, an overcast at 200 feet and a temperature/dewpoint spread of zero at nine degrees C.
The airplane came to rest in a wooded area at an elevation of 2776 feet msl, with its initial point of contact being a tree about 205 feet earlier in the debris path. There was no evidence of fire, and all major components of the airplane were located in the vicinity.
The left wing, outboard of the flap, was separated and found about 60 feet before the main wreckage. It exhibited a 1.5-foot semicircular impact area. The fuselage remained intact and exhibited impact damage. The right wing was partially impact-separated outboard of the flap and remained attached by an aileron control cable. The remainders of both wings were attached to the fuselage.
Flight control continuity was confirmed from all flight controls to all respective control surfaces. There were no anomalies found with the engine that would have precluded normal operation. The fixed-pitch propeller remained attached to the crankshaft flange. One blade exhibited chordwise scratching and was bent about 10 degrees. The other blade exhibited chordwise scratching and s-bending. Multiple tree branches found along the debris path were cut at a 45-degree angle and exhibited paint transfer marks consistent with propeller strikes.
The emergency locator transmitter remained secure in the fuselage and its switch was found in the OFF position.
Probable Cause
The NTSB determined the probable cause(s) of this accident to include: “The pilot’s continued visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions, resulting in controlled flight into terrain.” Yes, that’s the final pronouncement, but it fails to include other factors, either real or imagined.
One of those factors could have been the pilot’s perceived pressure to install the needed engine parts to complete his work and return the customer’s aircraft to service. Coming nightfall could also have been a factor, as well as worsening weather. If he didn’t get home soon, he’d likely have to divert, wasting time and resources. Similarly, he could have been returning home to meet a personal schedule that evening, like dinner plans.
His years of experience may also have been a factor: He’d probably flown the route in similar conditions. The bottom line is the weather worked against him, possibly by forcing him to fly lower than normal and, during the 540-degree turn, he allowed the airplane to descend below the highest terrain.
Preventing VFR-Into-IMC Accidents
The NTSB Safety Alert Reduced Visual References Require Vigilance (SA-020, revised December 2015) includes these recommendations to avoid these kinds of accidents:
- Obtain an official preflight weather briefing, and use all appropriate sources of weather information to make timely in-flight decisions.
- Refuse to allow external pressures to influence you to attempt or continue a flight in conditions with which you are not comfortable.
- Be honest with yourself about your skill limitations. Plan ahead with cancellation or diversion alternatives.
- Seek training to ensure you are proficient and fully understand the features and limitations of your aircraft: how to use avionics, autopilots and in-flight weather.
- Don’t allow a situation to become dangerous before deciding to act. Be honest with ATC if you need help.
- When planning a night VFR flight, familiarize yourself with the terrain. Consider avoiding areas with limited ground lighting.
