Piper PA28 C-GYSN

Summary

On 16 October 2016 at about 23:57 local time, a Piper PA28 registered C-GYSN, operated by St. Catharines Flying Club, was involved in an accident near Austin, Pennsylvania, United States. 3 people were on board and 3 died. The aircraft was destroyed. The NTSB has published a probable cause for this accident; it is quoted in full below.

Date

16 October 2016 at 23:57

Classification

Accident

Location

Austin, Pennsylvania, United States

Coordinates

41.7000, -78.1814

Aircraft

Piper PA28

Registration

C-GYSN

Category

Airplane

Year built

1977

Engines

1

Operator

St. Catharines Flying Club

Operating rule

Part 91: General Aviation

Purpose of flight

Personal

Phase of flight

Not recorded

Route

Richmond → St. Catherines

Aircraft damage

Destroyed

Weather

IMC

Light

Night/Dark

NTSB number

ERA17FA017

3 people died.

The pilot's loss of control while maneuvering in night instrument conditions that included light-to-heavy rain with severe turbulence, updrafts and downdrafts, and hail. Contributing to the accident was the pilot experiencing spatial disorientation, his lack of flight experience in actual instrument conditions, and his failure to request weather avoidance assistance from air traffic control.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record. This site does not paraphrase or interpret it.

Read the full NTSB narrative

The commercial pilot and two student pilot passengers were conducting an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight. The accident airplane was part of a group of several airplanes from the same flying club. About 2 hours 50 minutes after takeoff, the air traffic controller advised the accident pilot of areas of precipitation along the airplane's route of flight; the flight subsequently diverted west for about 6 minutes before re-establishing its northwesterly course. Review of weather information indicated that the airplane subsequently passed through an area of light-to-heavy rain with severe turbulence, updrafts and downdrafts, and small hail; temperatures at the airplane's cruise altitude were above freezing. The airplane entered a right turn at its cruise altitude; shortly thereafter, the turn rate increased, and the airplane began to rapidly descend. Radar contact was lost, and the airplane was subsequently located in a heavily wooded area. Examination of the airplane revealed no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the airframe, flight controls, or engine. The significant fragmentation of the wreckage was consistent with a high-energy impact following a loss of control. Although components of the vacuum-operated attitude indicator and directional gyro exhibited rotational scoring, examination of the engine-driven vacuum pump could not determine whether it was operating at impact. The initial right turn, which was about standard rate, was likely the pilot's attempt to fly out of the adverse weather. The subsequent right turn, at greater than standard rate, was likely due to spatial disorientation in adverse instrument conditions and not the result of a vacuum system malfunction. The weather encountered during the flight was forecast, but the extent to which the pilot had familiarized himself with the weather conditions before the flight could not be determined, because there was no record of the pilot receiving a weather briefing from an official, access-controlled source. Although the pilot had recently completed an instrument proficiency check (IPC), recovery from unusual attitudes was not a requirement of the IPC. None of his instrument flight experience was conducted in actual instrument conditions, and his most recent night flight experience was about 10 months before the accident. While the pilot was expecting weather avoidance assistance from the pilot of another airplane based on their verbal agreement before departure, the two pilots did not communicate during the accident flight. Given that the accident airplane was not equipped with onboard weather information, it could not be determined why the pilot chose to deviate in the direction that he did, rather than asking the controller for more information regarding the weather or for assistance in deviating around it. If the pilot had requested assistance, the controller likely would have been able to provide him with vectors to avoid the adverse conditions.

Quoted verbatim from the NTSB record.