AMES ANGIER M LNC2 — Atlantic Ocean, AO

What happened

The pilot did not receive an official weather briefing before beginning the instrument flight rules cross-country flight. While en route to the destination airport and as the airplane was descending, the pilot was advised of areas of moderate-to-heavy precipitation at the airplane's eleven-to-one-o'clock position. The pilot acknowledged this information, continued the airplane's descent, and maintained the airplane's heading. The pilot initiated a turn, and the controller asked the pilot if he was deviating to avoid the precipitation. The pilot replied that he was not deviating but that he could use a 10° turn to the left. No further communications were received from the pilot. A review of radar data for the flight revealed that the pilot made a 90° left turn and then flew straight for about 1 minute before radar contact was lost. A review of the airplane's radar track overlaid on weather radar plots surrounding the time of the accident revealed that the airplane flew into an area of moderate-to-heavy precipitation.

An Alert Notice (ALNOT) was issued, and airplane debris was located about 10 miles north of the airplane's last radar-observed location. Fragments of the wings, fuselage, and empennage were recovered, but no other parts of the airplane were located.

According to a witness statement and a review of weather data, the pilot likely entered instrument meteorological conditions just before the time of the accident and lost control of the airplane shortly after encountering the moderate-to-heavy precipitation in the area at the time. Even though the pilot was operating the airplane on an instrument flight rules flight plan, it is likely that he became spatially disoriented given that he turned the airplane 90° instead of the 10° requested. Because the pilot's logbook was not recovered, his recency and proficiency of instrument experience flight could not be determined.

Toxicology results showed a low concentration of ethanol in the pilot's muscle tissue; no other samples were provided for testing. Ethanol can be produced postmortem. The amount of ethanol detected, if ingested, would not be considered impairing. Thus, the identified ethanol did not contribute to the circumstances of this accident.

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