Weather (Other) · NTSB CEN20FA075
Cessna 182 — Chatham, LA
| Date | February 6, 2020 |
| Location | Chatham, LA |
| Aircraft | Cessna 182 |
| Purpose of flight | Business |
| Conditions | Day · Instrument Meteorological Cond |
| Phase / occurrence | Approach-IFR initial approach Structural icing |
| Pilot age | 61 |
| Pilot total time | 5,703 hrs · High time |
| Time in type | 204 hrs |
| Fatalities | 3 |
Probable cause
NTSB findings
- Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Temp/humidity/pressure-Conducive to structural icing-Contributed to outcome
- Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Airspeed-Not attained/maintained
- Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
What happened
The instrument-rated pilot was enroute on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan to his planned destination. Instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) prevailed in the area. While flying at 6,000 ft, the pilot informed air traffic control (ATC) that the airplane was picking up ice and asked for a lower altitude. ATC approved a descent to 3,000 ft. The pilot asked ATC if he could divert to a nearby airport to remove ice from the airplane, and ATC cleared the pilot to proceed to the initial approach fix for an instrument approach to the diversion airport. About 4 minutes later, ATC broadcasted a low altitude alert and attempted to advise the pilot that the airplane was at 1,000 ft., and to climb immediately. There was no response from the pilot. Radar data showed the airplane's ground speed slowing and in a rapid descent before radar contact was lost. The airplane impacted the ground in a near vertical attitude.
A post-impact fire consumed most of the fuselage, cabin, cockpit, and right wing. No pre-impact anomalies were observed with the airframe, flight controls, and engine. All flight instruments were consumed by the post-impact fire. Propeller blade damage was consistent with rotation at the time of impact.
A weather study of the area showed that marginal visual meteorological conditions (MVMC) to IMC prevailed along the airplane’s route and in the immediate vicinity of the accident site. AIRMETs (Airman’s meteorological information) were current for IFR conditions along the route of flight and occasional moderate icing conditions. The conditions were conducive to structural icing. There were several pilot reports of light icing in the accident area before and after the accident occurred. The pilot’s report of icing was consistent with the existing weather conditions. It is unknown whether the pilot obtained a weather briefing before the flight and was aware of the icing conditions.
The circumstances of this accident are consistent with a loss of control of the airplane due to in-flight icing.