CESSNA 206H — Kalkaska, MI

What happened

The instrument-rated pilot departed on a cross-country flight from Minnesota to New York. While en route and in visual flight rules conditions above the clouds, the pilot elected to divert to a nearby airport due to adverse weather conditions. The pilot received an instrument-flight-rules clearance, radar vectors, and instrument approach information from air traffic control (ATC). However, he was unable to complete the approach due to trouble receiving the localizer signal for the instrument landing system (ILS) approach. The pilot requested that he be able to continue with only glideslope information and the controller informed the pilot that his current altitude (2,700 feet mean sea level) was the minimum altitude that ATC could authorize. The pilot informed ATC that he was going to descend and ATC reported that radar contact was lost. Over the next approximately 4 minutes, the controller instructed the pilot several times to climb. The pilot did not comply with these requests and radar data indicated that the airplane circled several times about 1.5 miles east of the airport during this time period. After several requests the pilot agreed to climb and accepted vectors for another approach. Transcripts indicated that the pilot was able to successfully tune his navigation equipment for the global-positioning-system approach to the airport. While the airplane was being vectored for another approach the controller instructed the pilot to climb and the pilot responded "I'm off," which was the last transmission received from the accident airplane. Radar data showed that the airplane remained airborne and maneuvered east of the airport for 36 minutes after the last radio transmission from the pilot. Witnesses on the ground reported seeing the airplane circling before it struck trees, the ground, and a residence. The last radar contact was within 0.1 miles of the accident location. Review of the pilot's flight records showed that he had accumulated about 8 hours of actual instrument flight time since he received an instrument rating about 10 months prior to the accident; however, the records do not indicate that the pilot had met the recent flight experience required by regulations to act as pilot in command in instrument flight conditions. The autopsy on the pilot revealed evidence of multiple previous and one very recent, possibly ongoing, heart attack. There were no indications that the pilot had been symptomatic with or was aware of his heart disease. The circumstances of the accident do not suggest incapacitation, and the pilot did not indicate any symptoms in discussions with air traffic controllers. It could not be determined whether distraction or impairment due to the pilot’s heart disease may have played a role in this accident.

An editorial "what led to it / how to avoid it" analysis for this accident is generated separately and will appear here.