CEN10FA557

The pilot's decision to attempt an instrument approach in turbulent night instrument meteorological conditions with a recently-identified deficiency with his instrument flight proficiency, which resulted in a loss of airplane control as a result of spatial disorientation.

The accident occurred during a night cross-country flight in instrument meteorological conditions with reported moderate turbulence. Review of air traffic control data indicated that the instrument-rated pilot had difficulty navigating from the initial approach fix to the final approach fix. Radar track data showed that the pilot initially turned the wrong direction and ultimately made several course reversals that were not in accordance with the published approach procedure. Radar data also indicated that the pilot had difficulty maintaining an altitude appropriate for the segment of the approach; the airplane's altitude increased and decreased in excess of 500 feet. In addition, on several instances, the pilot allowed the airplane to descend below the prescribed minimum altitudes for the approach. The airplane eventually impacted a river in an uncontrolled descent about ½ mile north of the final approach fix. A postaccident examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of mechanical malfunctions or failures that would have precluded normal operation. During a recent checkout in the accident airplane, the pilot demonstrated a lack of instrument flight proficiency, and following the checkout, he was authorized to rent the accident airplane for visual flight rules (VFR) flights only. The flight instructor who provided the checkout flight reported that the pilot had difficulty maintaining situational awareness and aircraft control when flying only by reference to the flight instruments.

On September 23, 2010, about 2013 central daylight time, a Piper model PA-44-180 airplane, N570ER, was destroyed during an impact with the Trout River, near Woodruff, Wisconsin. The commercial pilot and his passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by JA Aero Inc., under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91, while on an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan. Night instrument meteorological conditions prevailed for the cross-country flight that departed the Aurora Municipal Airport (ARR), Sugar Grove, Illinois, at 1819, and was en route to Lakeland Airport (ARV), near Woodruff, Wisconsin. At 1746, an individual representing N570ER, contacted the Princeton Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS) to request a weather briefing and to file an IFR flight plan. The pilot filed for an 1800 departure from ARR, with direct routing to ARV, and a cruise altitude of 6,000 feet mean sea level (msl). He estimated his time en route to ARV would be about 2 hours, and that the airplane had 4 hours of fuel onboard. He identified Wausau Downtown Airport (AUW), Wausau, Wisconsin as his alternate destination. The weather briefer provided a full weather briefing, which consisted of a synopsis of the current and forecast weather conditions. The weather briefer told the pilot there was a warm front extending over Wisconsin that was producing widespread light to heavy rain showers. The briefer also told the pilot that instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) would prevail throughout the evening, with occasional moderate turbulence below 10,000 feet, and icing conditions above 16,000 feet. Additionally, with the approach of a cold front, there were strong wind conditions along the planned route. The weather briefing concluded at 1758. According to Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) air traffic control documentation, at 1808, the pilot established communication with ARR ground control and requested an IFR clearance to ARV. The flight was cleared via radar vectors to SIMMN intersection (near DeKalb, Illinois) and then direct to ARV. At 1819, the flight was cleared for takeoff on runway 18 and after departure it proceeded northwest toward SIMMN before being cleared direct to ARV. The flight was handled by multiple air traffic control facilities as it continued northbound toward ARV. At 1912:58 (hhmm:ss), the pilot established contact with Minneapolis Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and reported the airplane being level at 6,000 feet msl. At 1938:13, the controller provided the current weather conditions at the destination airport. The weather conditions included a surface wind from the southeast at 8 knots, 5 miles visibility with light rain, scattered clouds at 500 feet above ground level (agl), a broken ceiling at 1,000 feet agl, and an overcast ceiling at 2,000 feet agl. At 1939:42, the pilot requested the RNAV/GPS Runway 18 instrument approach procedure to ARV. At 1940:11, the flight was cleared to the initial approach fix FEGOG. At 1943:11, the controller asked the pilot if he was operating in instrument meteorological conditions. The pilot replied that the airplane was still in the clouds (radar track data indicated that the airplane was still flying at 6,000 feet msl). At 1953:20, the flight was cleared for the RNAV GPS Runway 18 approach into ARV and to descend to 3,500 feet msl. According to radar track data, the airplane was 29 miles south of FEGOG at 6,000 feet msl when cleared for the instrument approach. At 2003:03, after reaching FEGOG intersection, the flight proceeded west toward the intermediate fix, MIGPY. At 2005:03, the flight was about 2 miles east of MIGPY when it turned northbound (the opposite direction of the intended final approach course). The flight continued northbound until 2006:04 when it began a left 270-degree turn back toward east. During this turn, at 2006:16, the pilot reported that they were "getting bumped around a lot" and asked for radar vectors to an unspecified location. At 2006:44, the controller told the pilot that the airplane was cleared for the approach and that it appeared that the flight was already established on the final approach course inbound (radar track data indicated that the airplane was about 1.4 miles north of MIGPY). The pilot replied, "Um, yes sir." The controller then cleared the pilot to change to the airport advisory frequency. At 2006:59, the pilot requested radar vectors back to the final approach course. Radar track data indicated that the airplane had just crossed through the final approach course heading west-southwest. The controller told the pilot that the final approach course was not depicted on his radar display, to which the pilot replied, "Alright, well thank you very much." At 2007:14, the controller reissued the approach clearance and asked the pilot if he wanted to proceed to MIGPY intersection to complete the procedure turn to the final approach course. Radar track data showed the flight was about 1 mile northwest of MIGPY. The pilot replied that he would like to complete the procedure turn at MIGPY. At 2007:44, the controller asked the pilot to report when reestablished on the final approach course. At 2007:49, the pilot replied "Okay, thanks." Radar track data indicated the flight was crossing MIGPY heading east at that time. After crossing MIGPY, the flight turned to a northeast heading for about 24 seconds before making a right turn to the south-southwest. At 2009:13, the controller asked the pilot if he was established on the final approach course. The pilot replied, "um, negative sir, we're about uh, a little bit off here." The controller responded, "okay, uh, just uh, if you need to go back over the initial approach fix again that's no problem I got no traffic up there, just let me know when you're inbound." At 2009:31, the pilot replied, "Okay, thanks a lot, zero echo romeo." About 10 seconds later, at 2009:43, the pilot reported being over MIGPY. The radar track data indicated that the flight then continued southbound from MIGPY toward the final approach fix PEHEK. At 2011:18, the controller asked the pilot if he was established on the final approach course inbound. After not receiving a reply, at 2011:28, the controller asked the pilot again if he was established on the final approach course. After still not receiving a reply, at 2011:43, the controller asked if the pilot could hear him over the radio. The pilot replied, "Uh, loud and clear, zero echo romeo." The controller then asked the pilot for a third time if he was established on the final approach course. At 2011:51, the pilot replied "affirmative sir, zero echo romeo." Radar track data indicated that the airplane was about 2 miles north of the final approach fix on a southerly course toward the destination airport. The controller then told the pilot to change over to the airport advisory frequency, but to report upon landing on the controller's frequency. The pilot replied, "okay, well, uh, I'm sorry what did you want me to do?" The controller repeated his instructions, "November five seven zero echo romeo, when you land the plane on the ground, call on this frequency, and I will take your down time on this frequency." At 2012:10, the pilot replied, "thanks a lot for your help, zero echo romeo." The pilot did not make any additional radio transmissions on the ARTCC frequency. The minimum altitude for the approach segment between MIGPY and the final approach fix PEHEK was 3,200 feet msl. Radar track data indicated that the airplane descended from 3,000 feet msl to 2,100 feet between MIGPY and PEHEK. At 2012:28, the final radar return was recorded about 1.2 miles northwest of PEHEK and 6.5 miles north of the runway 18 threshold. A witness reported hearing an airplane overfly his residence, located about 1 mile southeast of MIGPY, on three occasions between 2000 and 2100. The witness, who was also a certificated commercial pilo