Beech C90 accident near Camden, South Carolina, May 27, 2011
On May 27, 2011 at about 7:15 pm local time, a Beech C90, registered N291CC, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Camden, South Carolina. It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 5 people were on board or involved. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's in-flight decision to continue toward his destination, through known significant weather, when safer alternatives were available.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- May 27, 2011 · about 7:15 pm local time
- Place
- Camden, South Carolina · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 5 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
- Aircraft
- Beech C90 · all C90s on the register
- Registration
- N291CC · registry record · serial LJ-728
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot obtained weather information via the internet before the flight. The information he obtained included advisories for convective activity and scattered thunderstorms along the intended northwesterly route of flight. The pilot reported that the takeoff and the climb to cruise altitude were "normal," with intermittent periods of light turbulence. About 100 miles northwest of the departure airport, the pilot observed weather ahead on the airplane's on-board weather radar and requested from the en route air traffic controller a 45-degree westerly course deviation. A course deviation was granted, but because of a potential conflict with a climbing airplane, the pilot was instructed to turn no more than 30 degrees west of his previously established heading. After turning the airplane 30 degrees, the pilot determined that he would need an additional 30- to 45-degree course deviation to avoid weather ahead. The pilot made at least two additional attempts to contact the controller, but received no response. Postaccident review of air traffic control recordings indicates that the pilot’s transmissions were likely blocked, as one of them was made while another pilot was transmitting and the other was made while the controller was speaking to yet another pilot. The pilot made an additional course deviation, and the airplane encountered moderate to severe turbulence lasting about 2 minutes; however, the airplane performed normally after the turbulence encounter and the pilot continued to the destination airport, landing without further incident. Subsequent examination of the airplane revealed substantial damage to the wing spar, likely due to the turbulence encounter. The airplane was equipped with a next generation radar receiver, weather radar, and a lightning strike indicator. The pilot was thus likely aware of areas of significant weather ahead of him, as well as the less significant weather to the northeast and south well before the encounter, and he was definitely aware of the clear weather through which he had just flown. Nonetheless, the pilot continued to fly toward his destination, and toward the significant weather, which resulted in the airplane's encounter with the turbulence.
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
- Turbulence encounter during enroute (cruise) defining event
- Windshear or thunderstorm during enroute (cruise)
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
- cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Convective weather › Thunderstorm › Decision related to condition
- cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Turbulence › Convective turbulence › Effect on equipment
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; single-engine sea; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 14,500 hours in all; 2,200 in this make and model; 125 in the last 90 days; 50 in the last 30 days; 13,500 as pilot in command; 6,000 on instruments
- Last flight review: February 16, 2011
- Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 10,423 hours
- Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, April 27, 2011
- Maximum gross weight: 10,500 lb
- Seats: 8
- 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
- Operator: LP Aviation LLC
The flight
- Departed from: CHS Charleston SC at 6:45 pm
- Destination: VTA Newark OH
- Flight plan: IFR
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 320° at 9 knots, gusting 39
- Visibility: 0 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 300 ft
- Temperature: 73°F (23°C), dew point 68°F (20°C)
- Altimeter: 29.87 inHg
- Observation at 7:15 pm from CDN, 10 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 | |||
| Passengers | 4 |
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.
Other NTSB records under N291CC the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.