The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA14LA117 · Final report

Piper PA-28-161 accident near Stuart, Florida, February 8, 2014

On February 8, 2014, a 1979 Piper PA-28-161, registered N2571U, was destroyed in an accident during enroute (cruise) near Stuart, Florida. It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The noninstrument-rated pilot’s continued flight into dark night, instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in a loss of control due to spatial disorientation and subsequent impact with water.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
February 8, 2014
Place
Stuart, Florida · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Piper PA-28-161, built 1979 · all PA-28-161s on the register
Registration
N2571U · no longer on the register · serial 28-8016037
Damage
Destroyed
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

According to the operator/owner, the noninstrument-rated pilot was visiting the United States on vacation and had rented the airplane for about 1 week. The pilot planned a day trip to an airport located about 2.5 hours from the airplane's home base, and the accident occurred on the return leg. After departing on the return leg, the pilot contacted air traffic control and requested flight-following services for the planned flight route, which was just offshore of the southeastern coast of Florida. About 1.5 hours into the flight and almost 1 hour after sunset, the accident pilot heard another pilot, who was operating on the same radio frequency, request an instrument flight rules clearance to an airport that was between the accident pilot's position and his intended destination. The accident pilot then requested an update of the current weather conditions at his destination, and an air traffic controller advised that an overcast ceiling of 600 ft prevailed. When the pilot requested the weather conditions for a slightly closer airport, the controller advised that there were scattered clouds at 700 ft and an overcast ceiling at 1,000 ft. The pilot subsequently advised the controller that he intended to divert the flight to the closer airport. As the flight continued, the pilot discussed the weather conditions with an air traffic controller, noting that the cloud ceiling was "pretty low" and that he couldn't "get a real handle on the ceiling." The controller then asked the pilot what altitude he could maintain, and he responded "700 ft." After transitioning to an area without low-altitude radar coverage, the pilot advised that he was flying at an altitude of 450 ft. An air traffic controller then advised the pilot that flight-following services were not available at that altitude, and, after flight-following services were terminated, no further radio communications were received from the pilot. The operator reported the airplane missing when it did not return later that evening as scheduled, and personal effects and airplane wreckage began washing ashore the following morning in the vicinity of the flight's last known position. No radar coverage was available in the area where the accident likely occurred; therefore, the exact sequence of events that resulted in the airplane's ultimate impact with water could not be determined. However, the condition of the recovered wreckage was consistent with water impact at a significant velocity. The weather forecast at the pilot's original destination airport at the time of his departure indicated that marginal visual meteorological conditions (VMC) would prevail at the time of his anticipated arrival. As the flight progressed, the conditions en route and at the destination eventually deteriorated below VMC, and, as noted, the pilot discussed the deteriorating weather conditions with the air traffic controller several times. Although the reported visibilities in the area were favorable, the flight was conducted on a dark, moonless night under an overcast ceiling, over the ocean, and off a relatively sparsely populated area of the coast. These factors would have reduced the pilot's ability to perceive the natural horizon and increased his risk of losing airplane control due to spatial disorientation. The pilot might have reduced this risk by diverting the flight earlier to a destination with more favorable weather and lighting conditions. However, the pilot ultimately chose to divert to an airport that was only slightly closer than his original destination, which reported weather conditions at visual flight rules minimums. At the time of the actual diversion, the airplane was passing within 4 nautical miles of a large international airport, which at the time was reporting a cloud ceiling higher than 4,000 ft. Even after this point, the pilot could have chosen to turn around and return to this airport rather than continuing the flight into deteriorating conditions.

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. VFR encounter with IMC during enroute (cruise)
  2. Loss of control in flight during enroute (cruise) defining event
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Light condition › Dark › Decision related to condition
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Low ceiling › Decision related to condition
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Below VFR minima › Decision related to condition
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Light condition › Dark › Effect on operation
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Below VFR minima › Effect on operation
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Low ceiling › Effect on operation
  • cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Perception/orientation/illusion › Spatial disorientation › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › (general) › Not attained/maintained

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land
  • Flight time: 99,999 hours in all
  • Last flight review: February 2, 2014
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: unk
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Last inspection: inspection type not recorded
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,325 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320 (piston); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Fishe Flying CORP

The flight

  • Departed from: MTH Marathon FL at 10:30 pm
  • Destination: VRB Vero Beach FL
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: night, dark
  • Wind: from 050° at 10 knots
  • Visibility: 7 statute miles
  • Sky: broken clouds at 700 ft
  • Temperature: 68°F (20°C), dew point 64°F (18°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.12 inHg
  • Observation at 6:47 pm from KSUA, 4 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.

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.