The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA18FA030 · Final report

Mooney M20C accident near Starke, Florida, November 23, 2017

On November 23, 2017 at about 8:15 pm local time, a 1968 Mooney M20C, registered N6894N, was destroyed in an accident during maneuvering near Starke, Florida (Cecil airport). 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 pilot's loss of control due to spatial disorientation while maneuvering in instrument meteorological conditions. Contributing was the pilot's lack of instrument currency and his self-induced pressure to complete the flight.

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

What the record shows

Date
November 23, 2017 · about 8:15 pm local time
Place
Starke, Florida · Cecil · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Mooney M20C NO SERIES, built 1968 · all M20Cs on the register
Registration
N6894N · no longer on the register · serial 680164
Damage
Destroyed
Flight
Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

A friend of the private pilot accompanied him on the flight leg before the accident flight; she stated that, while approaching to land, the weather became "very turbulent" and that, after they landed, it was "very windy and raining very hard." The pilot stated that he needed to continue his flight in order to attend a family event, and the passenger suggested that he wait for the weather to improve. During this time, the pilot requested fuel for his airplane from line personnel at the airport's fixed base operator (FBO), who asked if the pilot could wait to receive fuel due to the adverse weather. The pilot stated that he needed fuel "now" and requested that the line personnel wipe his fuel caps with a towel and use an umbrella to prevent rainwater from entering the fuel tanks. After waiting about 45 minutes for the weather to improve, the pilot stated to FBO personnel that he was "heading out"; when asked if he had found a break in the weather, the pilot said he was "gonna go for it." Based on the pilot's comments to his passenger and FBO personnel, he was likely experiencing self-induced pressure to complete the flight despite the poor weather conditions in order to attend the family event. The pilot subsequently departed on the 65-mile instrument flight rules (IFR) flight. While en route, the controller told the pilot that the airplane's target was "all over the place" and asked if he needed assistance. The pilot indicated that this was due to the wind conditions and declined to change cruise altitudes. The controller then cleared the pilot for the instrument approach at the destination; while the pilot was conducting the approach, the radar controller advised the local controller that the airplane was "going back and forth" through the approach course. Shortly thereafter, the pilot executed a missed approach and asked to try the approach again. The controller provided headings and altitudes to the pilot, then asked if he would like to try an approach at a nearby airport that was reporting better weather conditions. The pilot accepted and the controller provided a heading and altitude toward that airport. The pilot acknowledged the heading but did not acknowledge the altitude assignment; there were no further communications from the pilot and radar contact was lost shortly thereafter. Review of weather radar information showed light to moderate intensity echoes over the route of flight and the accident site consistent with rain showers, and soundings depicted a high probability of moderate or greater low-level turbulence in the area. Conditions about the time of the accident at a nearby airport included 1-1/4 mile visibility in heavy rain and a broken cloud ceiling at 100 ft above ground level. Although the pilot contacted flight service to file his IFR flight plan, he did not request a weather briefing at that time, and what, if any, weather information he obtained before the flight could not be determined. Examination of the airplane, engine, and propeller components did not reveal any anomalies that would have precluded normal operation. Review of the pilot's logbook revealed that he did not meet recency requirements to act as pilot-in-command in instrument meteorological conditions (IMC). In addition, his communications with air traffic control and the airplane's flight path during the approach is consistent with a lack of proficiency while operating in IMC. The reduced visibility conditions present at the time of the accident were conducive to the development of spatial disorientation, and the damage to the airplane indicated a high-energy impact consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. It is likely that the pilot experienced spatial disorientation while maneuvering after a missed approach, which resulted in a loss of control.

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. Loss of control in flight during maneuvering defining event
  2. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Pilot
  • cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Perception/orientation/illusion › Spatial disorientation › Pilot
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Rain › Effect on operation
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Clouds › Effect on operation
  • cause Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Turbulence › (general) › Effect on operation
  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › (general) › Not attained/maintained
  • factor Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Experience/qualifications › Recent experience › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Psychological › Personality/attitude › Motivation/respond to pressure › Pilot

Pilot

  • Certificate: private
  • Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 3,146 hours in all; 400 in this make and model; 4 in the last 90 days
  • Last flight review: March 29, 2016
  • Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Last inspection: annual inspection, August 1, 2017
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,575 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine: Lycoming O-360-A1D (piston); 2,895 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: OCF Ocala FL at 8:00 pm
  • Destination: VQQ Jacksonville FL
  • Flight plan: IFR

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 030° at 12 knots
  • Visibility: 2 statute miles
  • Sky: overcast at 900 ft; not recorded
  • Temperature: 63°F (17°C), dew point 63°F (17°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.87 inHg
  • Observation at 8:11 pm from VQQ, 17 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

13 documents, released by the NTSB on January 29, 2020. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.

The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.

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.