Cirrus SR22 — Americus, GA

What happened

The pilot (who was the owner of the airplane) and pilot-rated passenger departed the airport for a cross-country flight in dark night instrument meteorological conditions (IMC), destined for an airshow for the final weekend of the event. Radar data showed the airplane's radar track after takeoff in a 180° left arc. The airplane climbed to about 1,300 ft mean sea level (msl), or about 850 ft above ground level, and then descended to 1,100 ft msl before radar contact was lost about 1 minute after takeoff.

The pilot-rated passenger had access to the flight controls and held pilot certificates, ratings, and flight experience that would have allowed him to act as a pilot for the flight It could not be determined what his role was for the flight, be that solely a passenger, assisting the pilot/owner, or manipulating the airplane’s controls during all or a portion of the accident flight.

Examination of the wreckage revealed no evidence of preimpact mechanical malfunctions or failures of the airplane. Weather information and a witness statement were consistent with weather conditions likely to have produced restricted visibility in addition to the darkness that prevailed at the time of the accident. The wreckage distribution, which was consistent with a relatively high-speed impact, the airplane's turning ground track and descent about 1 minute after takeoff, and the low visibility at the time of the accident, were indicative of a loss of airplane control after the onset of spatial disorientation.

Further, the pilot/owner did not obtain an official weather briefing, did not file an instrument flight rules flight plan for a flight that departed into IMC, and was flying the airplane after the annual inspection was due; thus, it is likely that he had developed an anti-authority attitude, as evidenced by the disregard for several rules and regulations. While it could not be determined what role the pilot-rated passenger played in the decision making that took place before and during the flight, the pilot-rated passenger should have had the training and experience necessary to recognize these hazards. In addition, they may have experienced "get-there-itis" because they were flying to the airshow for its final few days and, thus, wanted to arrive as quickly as possible, which resulted in the decision to depart the airport in dark IMC under visual flight rules.

Although toxicology testing detected ethanol in tissue samples from the pilot and passenger, medical evidence was insufficient to determine if the pilot or passenger were impaired.

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