CEN16LA281

The pilot’s decision to fly into known thunderstorms, which resulted in an in-flight breakup.

Before takeoff on a personal cross-country flight, the private pilot received two official weather briefings of all the forecast and observed weather conditions along the flight route, which included thunderstorms and convective SIGMETs. A review of air traffic control (ATC) information revealed that, while en route to the destination airport, the pilot was in contact with ATC and attempting to circumnavigate oncoming weather and precipitation. The pilot requested ATC assistance and stated that he could avoid the clouds if ATC could help him avoid the precipitation, indicating that he was aware of the weather conditions but that he likely did not have onboard weather information. The Middletown sector approach controller provided two route options: one of the options would have allowed the pilot to completely avoid the precipitation and taken him farther away from his destination, and the other option would have allowed the pilot to proceed between two areas of precipitation and stay closer to his intended route. The controller obtained PIREPs from two pilots who had previously transitioned through the two areas of precipitation, and they reported that they "didn't really have any problems" flying through the area. The controller also provided the pilot the intensity of the two cells and the estimated distance between the two areas of precipitation. After the controller relayed this information to the pilot, he chose to fly between the two areas of heavy precipitation. The controller then transferred communication to the Urbana sector approach controller. After the pilot checked in with the Urbana approach controller, the controller issued the pilot several heading suggestions to the northwest to avoid the precipitation, but the pilot responded that he wanted to continue on his present heading and then continued flying east toward the severe weather. Despite several subsequent suggestions by the controller to the pilot to change course to avoid the weather, according to radar data, the airplane continued flying east toward the severe weather. In the final 3.5 minutes of the flight, while flying east, the airplane made a left 360° turn while descending about 2,900 ft per minute (fpm), then resumed a climb while heading east. Less than 1 minute later, the airplane made a right 310° turn while descending about 1,200 fpm. The airplane then flew northeast and descended about 4,600 fpm to 3,440 ft above ground level. Subsequently, the descent rate increased to about 6,450 fpm, at which point radar contact was lost. The airplane entered an area of an outflow boundary and thunderstorms and likely encountered heavy precipitation, severe-to-extreme turbulence, updrafts and downdrafts, and wind shear. A witness saw the airplane in a steep descent and heard the engine operating; the airplane then disappeared behind a tree line, at which point she heard the sound of an impact. The airplane impacted a corn field heading north. The vertical stabilizer and rudder were found 0.61 to 0.63 nautical miles southwest of the main wreckage, respectively, and exhibited overload signatures consistent with an in-flight breakup. A postaccident examination of the airframe and engine did not reveal any anomalies, other than the separated components, that would have precluded normal operation. Although the Middletown sector controller provided general information about the observed weather, she did not provide specific information, such as the direction relative to the airplane and distance to the bands of weather and the widths of the weather bands, as required by Federal Aviation Administration Order 7110.65. The controller's workload did not prevent her from providing general weather information and suggesting headings to the pilot, which indicates that the controller could have provided more specific adverse weather information without detriment to other duties, as required. However, it is unlikely that this affected the pilot's decision about the route he flew. The pilot's continued flight into known thunderstorms resulted in the in-flight breakup of the airplane. Although toxicology testing detected ethanol in the pilot's muscle and liver, the ratio of the detected ethanol suggested that some or all the ethanol was from sources other than ingestion.

HISTORY OF FLIGHT ***This report was modified on August 16, 2017. Please see the docket for this accident to view the original report.*** On July 22, 2016, about 1040 eastern daylight time, a Levon G King Vans RV9A airplane, N807LK, impacted terrain near Springfield, Ohio. The pilot and one passenger were fatally injured and the airplane was destroyed. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Marginal visual meteorological conditions prevailed near the accident site and the airplane was receiving visual flight rules flight following. The flight departed Tri-Cities Regional Airport (TRI), Bristol/Johnson/Kingsport, Tennessee, about 0850 and was en route to Grosse Ile Municipal Airport (ONZ), Detroit/Grosse Ile, Michigan. A review of the air traffic control (ATC) and radar data revealed that while en route to ONZ, the pilot was in contact with ATC and attempted to navigate around the oncoming weather and precipitation. From 0957 to 1038 the pilot communicated with the controllers about avoiding the precipitation and requested assistance in doing so. The pilot stated that he could avoid the clouds if ATC could keep him out of the precipitation. The controllers gave the pilot several heading suggestions to the northwest to avoid the precipitation that they observed on their radar scopes. The pilot continued flying east toward the severe weather (figure 1). Figure 1 – Weather radar with flight track In the final 3.5 minutes of the flight while flying east, the airplane made a left 360° turn while descending about 2,900 ft per minute (fpm), then resumed a climb while heading east. Less than one minute later, the airplane made a right 310° turn, descending about 1,200 fpm. The airplane then flew northeast and descended about 4,600 fpm to an elevation of 3,440 ft above ground level (agl). The descent rate increased to about 6,450 fpm until radar contact was lost (figure 2). A witness observed the accident airplane above her house as it flew east-northeast (figure 2). She stated that the airplane was in a steep descent and disappeared behind a tree line when she heard the sound of an impact. She heard the engine operating before the airplane disappeared behind the trees. Figure 2 – Google Earth view of final flight path and witness location. Altitude in mean sea level (msl) PERSONNEL INFORMATION AIRCRAFT INFORMATION The pilot built the airplane from a kit, which was configured for 2 occupants with side-by-side seating. The airplane received a special airworthiness certificate with an experimental designation on April 27, 2015. The pilot logged the airplane's first flight on July 30, 2015. The airplane was equipped with a TruTrak electronic flight instrument system, a Garmin GTX 327 transponder, and Free Flight automatic dependent surveillance-broadcast (ADS-B). A Garmin 795 handheld GPS was found onboard and was damaged to the extent that a download of non-volatile memory was not possible. An external Garmin GPS antenna was found by the FAA inside the pilot's hangar at ONZ. The investigation did not find any evidence of a satellite weather subscription and could not determine if the pilot was receiving weather information to the cockpit instruments. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION While en route, air traffic controller advised the pilot that two other airplanes had flown over Dayton, Ohio, but that route was located between two cells with heavy precipitation, and there was only 5 to 8 miles clearance on either side. The controller informed the pilot that she would request pilot reports (PIREPs) from the pilots. The air traffic controller informed the accident pilot that the pilots who had transitioned over Dayton indicated that they "didn't really have any problems" flying through that area. A search of weather briefing sources revealed that the accident pilot contacted Lockheed Martin Flight Service at 0619 and 0804 and received weather briefings. During the first weather briefing, the briefer explained a Convective SIGMET (a weather advisory concerning convective weather significant to the safety of all aircraft) outlook which bordered the area along the western edge of the intended flight track and was valid through 1150. An Airmen's Meteorological Information (AIRMET) for moderate turbulence was current to the west of ONZ. It was anticipated that thunderstorms would continue to develop due to a frontal boundary in the area and turbulence was likely near ONZ. During the second weather briefing at 0804, the briefer explained that rain had developed through northern portions of Ohio and was slowly moving east-southeast. A Convective SIGMET had been issued for the route of flight and an AIRMET for higher level turbulence had been issued for the northern portion of the route of flight. Additional Convective SIGMETs could be issued for Ohio northward during the accident flight and deviations to the west would likely avoid the SIGMET. Thunderstorms were moving southeast toward Columbus, Ohio. The briefer further explained that due to the weather conditions, the pilot would likely go direct Ohio State University Airport (OSU), Columbus, Ohio, then direct to ONZ in order to avoid the thunderstorms. There is no record of the accident pilot receiving or retrieving any other weather information other than the information provided by ATC. FAA Advisory Circular AC 00-24C, "Thunderstorms," defines the echo intensity levels and weather radar echo intensity terminology associated with those levels. For decibel (dBZ) values less than 30 the weather radar echo intensity terminology should be "light," 30 to 40 dBZ should be "moderate," and 40 to 50 dBZ should be "heavy." Any values above 50 dBZ shall be described as "extreme." From the National Weather Service, precipitation conditions at the surface can be inferred from VIP Levels described as: • VIP 1 (Level 1, 18-30 dBZ) - Light precipitation • VIP 2 (Level 2, 30-38 dBZ) - Light to moderate rain. • VIP 3 (Level 3, 38-44 dBZ) - Moderate to heavy rain. • VIP 4 (Level 4, 44-50 dBZ) - Heavy rain • VIP 5 (Level 5, 50-57 dBZ) - Very heavy rain; hail possible. • VIP 6 (Level 6, >57 dBZ) - Very heavy rain and hail; large hail possible. The GPS flight track indicated that the airplane flew through an area of 10 to 40 dBZ reflectivity values located along the route of flight before the accident time. Reflectivity values of 25 to 40 dBZ were located north of the flight path. The accident flight flew into an area of defined thunderstorms while an outflow boundary north of the accident site was moving south. As the outflow boundary moved south across the accident site there was a corresponding increase in the dBZ values in the base reflectivity data. There were lightning flashes and strikes surrounding the accident area with more than 900 lightning flashes associated with the thunderstorms between 1030 and 1040 EDT. The flight path was within 2 miles of the lightning flashes after 1037:02 EDT through the accident time (figure 1). COMMUNICATIONS ATC Transcripts – Partial Summary 10:34:15 – (pilot) good morning Columbus, experimental November eight zero seven lima kilo we 're level (unintelligible) at nine point four 10:34:22 – (ATC) experimental eight zero seven lima kilo Columbus approach altimeter is three zero seven seven 10:34:28 – (pilot) three zero seven seven, seven lima kilo 10:34:35 – (pilot) and seven lima kilo we'd like all the help you can give us around this precip[itation] 10:34:40 – (ATC) experimental seven lima kilo say again 10:34:43 – (pilot) any help you can give us to avoid the precip[itation] we'd appreciate 10:34:47 – (ATC) seven lima kilo roger my radar scope you need to turn straight to the northwest about a three twenty to three thirty heading uh if you