The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily · Carbon Free Flight by 2050
Accidents · NTSB CEN12LA095 · Final report

Beech F90 accident near Midland, Texas, December 2, 2011

On December 2, 2011 at about 2:10 pm local time, a Beech F90, registered N90QL, was destroyed in an accident during approach (IFR final approach) near Midland, Texas (Midland Airpark airport). It was a positioning flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was seriously injured. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).

Preview. This page is not yet listed for search engines.

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot's failure to maintain the recommended airspeed for icing conditions and his subsequent loss of airplane control while flying the airplane under autopilot control in severe icing conditions, contrary to the airplane's handbook. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to divert from an area of severe icing. Also contributing to the accident was the lack of an advisory for potential hazardous icing conditions over the destination area.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 4, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
December 2, 2011 · about 2:10 pm local time
Place
Midland, Texas · Midland Airpark · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was seriously injured.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Beech F90 · all F90s on the register
Registration
N90QL · no longer on the register · serial LA-2
Damage
Destroyed
Flight
Positioning flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

The pilot obtained a weather briefing for the flight, during which light freezing drizzle was forecast for the proposed time and route. However, no advisories, either before or during the flight, were issued for the potential of hazardous icing conditions. The pilot stated that he had all of the airplane's deicing equipment on; however, the airplane accumulated moderate to severe airframe icing. The airplane was cleared for a GPS approach to the airport, and the pilot reported that he used the autopilot to fly the airplane to a navigational fix. An air traffic controller saw that the airplane was off course and subsequently canceled the flight's approach clearance. The copilot's window iced up. The flight was then cleared for another approach attempt, during which the pilot's window became "halfway iced up." The controller advised that the airplane appeared to be "about a half mile south of the course" for runway 25. The pilot configured the airplane with approach flaps and extended the landing gear before the final approach fix. The airplane descended under the cloud deck, and the pilot began to look for the runway. The pilot stated when he advanced the throttles, the airplane rolled about 90 degrees to the left. He disengaged the autopilot and attempted to use the yoke to level the airplane. The airplane then rolled about 90 degrees to the right. The pilot was unable to regain airplane control, and the stall warning horn came on seconds before the airplane impacted the ground. The pilot stated that he believed the loss of control was "primarily due to ice." The pilot stated that he maintained a target airspeed of 120 knots on approach, 100 knots "close to the ground," and was close to 80 knots when the airplane was in the 90-degree right bank. The airplane's recommended minimum airspeed for sustained flight in icing was 140 knots. The airplane's pilot operating handbook (POH) advises pilots to immediately request priority handling from air traffic control to facilitate a route or an altitude change to exit the icing conditions. Additionally, the handbook cautions the pilot that autopilot usage masks tactile cues, which indicate adverse changes in handling characteristics, and that use of the autopilot is prohibited when any specified visual cues exist in icing conditions. While the National Weather Service (NWS) issued an icing advisory over an area bordering the destination to the north, no NWS icing advisory extended over the area where the accident occurred. While the pilot would have been aware of potential icing from his weather briefings, he may not have expected the hazard due to the absence of an icing advisory over his route. If the pilot relied upon the graphic presentation provided in the icing advisory, which did not extend to his intended route, he may have been led to believe that he could accomplish the flight safely.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Other weather encounter during approach
  2. Loss of control in flight during approach (IFR final approach) defining event
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › (general) › Incorrect use/operation
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of automation › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action selection › Pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › (general) › Contributed to outcome
  • factor Organizational issues › Management › Communication (organizational) › Between groups/organizations › Meteorological service

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 4,600 hours in all; 25 in this make and model; 99 in the last 90 days; 44 in the last 30 days; 4,400 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: August 14, 2011
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: serious injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 8,253 hours
  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, June 9, 2011
  • Maximum gross weight: 10,950 lb
  • Seats: 7
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: P&W Canada PT6A-135A (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Engine 2: P&W Canada PT6A-135A (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Fire on the ground
  • Operator: Quality Lease Air Services LLC

The flight

  • Departed from: ARM Wharton TX at 12:26 pm
  • Destination: MDD Midland TX
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • Runway 25, 5,022 ft by 75 ft

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 030° at 9 knots
  • Visibility: 2 statute miles
  • Sky: overcast at 800 ft; scat at 300 ft
  • Temperature: 34°F (1°C), dew point 34°F (1°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.30 inHg
  • Observation at 2:15 pm from KMDD, 1 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

About this page

Everything above comes from the NTSB's public accident database: the narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words, and the coded tables behind its report (pilot, aircraft, flight, weather, injuries, sequence of events) are written out in plain English. Pilots' ages, home towns and medical details are left out on purpose. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, the folder of records gathered during the investigation, shown as the NTSB released them (the NTSB redacts some personal details first) and listed under the NTSB's own titles. This site's own text never names pilots, passengers or anyone else involved. A preliminary report describes what is known soon after the event and can change; the final report, with the probable cause, usually follows one to two years later and this page is refreshed when it does. Case number CEN12LA095.