Lake Placid, NY, USA
N10FD
DOMBROSKI FRANK VANS RV-10
The pilot received weather information and filed an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan before departure. As the pilot approached his destination, which was surrounded by high terrain, the scattered cloud layer below him became broken and light conditions were dimming as the sun set. After seeing a break in the clouds and being uncomfortable with what he observed, the pilot requested the GPS-A approach then maneuvered to intercept the inbound course at the initial approach fix (IAF). Before reaching the IAF, he saw a clear visual path to his destination. At the same time, the air traffic controller was awaiting cancellation from a landing aircraft and advised that the pilot should expect an instruction to hold. The pilot advised that visual meteorological conditions existed and that he would continue visually. He then turned, descended, and crossed the final approach course inside of the final approach fix. The controller then received the cancellation he had been waiting for and cleared the pilot for the GPS-A approach. The pilot acknowledged and continued his descent. The controller then asked the pilot to cancel his IFR clearance with him or on the ground. The pilot replied with his intention to fly a visual flight rules (VFR) approach and canceled the IFR clearance. The pilot had the town in sight and estimated there was a 2,000-foot ceiling. Light conditions were significantly darker below the cloud layer. He switched to the Unicom frequency and keyed the microphone five times to activate the runway lights but did not see them. He tried twice more, and the lights still did not activate. As the pilot considered whether to climb or circle the airport and try the lights again, he maintained his last heading, which he believed would keep him over lower terrain. However, the airplane drifted right of course. The pilot had decided to climb when a passenger then observed trees. The pilot pulled up to avoid them, but the airplane struck trees and terrain, sustaining substantial damage to the fuselage, wings, and empennage. Radar data revealed that the pilot had never become established on the approach, at no point was in position to land, and was never closer than 1 mile northeast of the airport before flying into rising terrain. No anomalies with airport lighting were discovered. Examination of the GPS-A approach procedure revealed that it was not authorized for use at night. Weather data recorded near the time of the accident indicate visibility below VFR minimums at 2.5 miles in light snow and mist and a 1,400-foot overcast ceiling, which was also below the published minimum descent altitude.
The pilot received weather information and filed an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan prior to departure. Approaching his destination which was surrounded by high terrain, the scattered cloud layer below him became broken. The sun was setting, so after seeing a break in the clouds and not being comfortable with what he observed, he requested the GPS-A, approach. He then maneuvered to intercept the inbound course at the initial approach fix (IAF). Before reaching the IAF, he saw a clear visual path to his destination. At the same time, the air traffic controller was waiting cancellation from another aircraft, and advised the pilot should expect a hold. The pilot advised visual meteorological conditions (VMC) existed, and he would continue visually. He then turned, descended, and crossed the final approach course inside of the final approach fix (FAF). The controller then received the other cancellation and cleared the pilot for the approach. The pilot acknowledged and continued his descent. The controller then asked him to cancel his IFR clearance with him, or on the ground. The pilot replied he was VFR and would cancel IFR. The pilot had the town in sight, and estimated there was a 2000 foot ceiling. It was significantly darker below the cloud layer. He switched to the Unicom frequency, keyed the microphone 5 times to activate the runway lights but, did not see them. He tried twice more without result and tried to dim the screen on the flight display, as the electronic image of the approach chart was creating glare on his windshield. He was deciding if he should climb into the overcast, try to circle the airport, or try the lights again, and thought his last heading, would keep him over lower terrain. However, the airplane drifted right of course. A passenger then observed trees. The pilot saw them and pulled up but, the airplane struck trees and terrain, and was substantially damaged. Radar data revealed he never became established on the approach, never was in position to land, and never got closer than one mile northeast of the airport before flying into rising terrain. No anomalies with airport lighting were discovered. Examination of the approach procedure revealed the GPS-A was not authorized for use at night. Visibility was below VFR minimums at 2 and 1/2 miles, in light snow and mist, and a 1,400 foot overcast ceiling existed which was below the published minimum descent altitude.
The pilot's improper in-flight planning and decision making, which resulted in attempted visual flight in night instrument meteorological conditions and subsequent impact with terrain.
Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database
Aviation Accidents App
In-Depth Access to Aviation Accident Reports
