The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA19FA116 · Final report

Piper PA28 accident near Fellsmere, Florida, March 5, 2019

On March 5, 2019 at about 12:03 pm local time, a 2000 Piper PA28, registered N556PU, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Fellsmere, Florida. It was an instructional 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 student pilot's loss of control due to spatial disorientation following an encounter with instrument meteorological conditions shortly after takeoff. Contributing to the accident was the failure of both the pilot and the flight school to ensure that the pilot had received the proper endorsements for the flight and the pilot’s self-imposed pressure to complete the flight in order to remain in the flight program.

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

What the record shows

Date
March 5, 2019 · about 12:03 pm local time
Place
Fellsmere, Florida · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Piper PA28 161, built 2000 · all PA28s on the register
Registration
N556PU · no longer on the register · serial 2842093
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Instructional flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

The student pilot was scheduled to complete a solo cross-country flight the day before the accident, and her flight instructor had provided the required endorsements for that flight; however, the flight was subsequently cancelled due to weather and was rescheduled for the following morning. When the pilot arrived on the airport the morning of the accident, she was released for the flight by the operations duty officer (DO), who was responsible for confirming that students had the proper endorsements for solo flight, even though her endorsements for the previous day's flight would have been no longer valid. The DO was also responsible for ensuring that weather conditions along a student's planned route of flight met the student’s prescribed limitations, and found that although the departure airport was reporting visual flight rules (VFR) conditions, the destination airports were reporting instrument flight rules (IFR) conditions. He stated that airports in the area tended to be IFR in the early-morning hours due to fog, then quickly improve to VFR after sunrise. He signed the pilot's flight risk assessment so that she could conduct her preflight inspection, but stressed to her that she needed to check the weather again before takeoff, and if conditions were still IFR, then the flight needed to be cancelled. Between the time the DO released the pilot for the flight and the time she subsequently departed just after sunrise, weather conditions at the departure airport deteriorated from VFR to low IFR, including a cloud ceiling around 400 to 500 ft above ground level. The airplane likely entered instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) immediately after takeoff. A review of radar data revealed that the pilot flew west-northwest of the airport and made a series of climbing and descending turns before the airplane impacted terrain around 6 minutes after takeoff about 7.3 miles northwest of the airport. Postaccident examination of the airplane and the engine revealed no discrepancies that would have precluded normal operation. The airplane's radar track after takeoff did not suggest an immediate loss of control upon entering IMC; however, the climbing and descending turns near the end of the data are consistent with the known effects of spatial disorientation. On the morning of the accident, four other students departed on solo flights. Three of the pilots departed just before the accident pilot. Two of these pilots stated that they checked the weather before their flights and conditions were VFR; however, it was still dark out and they could not see the clouds. All three pilots entered the clouds immediately after takeoff but were able to climb to a safer altitude and divert to another airport. Students were required to obtain a weather briefing and file a flight plan as part of the preflight planning process. It could not be determined what weather information, if any, the pilot obtained the morning of the accident, and she did not file a flight plan for the flight. The pilot was behind in her flight training schedule and had expressed concerns about being removed from the flight program. It is possible that she felt self-imposed pressure to complete the flight to remain in the program. Additionally, she may have assumed that she was cleared to conduct the flight upon being released by the DO, though previous communications with her instructor indicated that she was aware of the endorsement requirements. Although the pilot should have known that her decision to depart on the flight without a flight plan and without an instructor endorsement met neither Federal Aviation Administration nor the school's published requirements, the DO should have recognized that the endorsements contained in her logbooks were for the previous day and not released the pilot for the flight without consulting the instructor.

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 visual reference during initial climb defining event
  2. Loss of visual reference during maneuvering
  3. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent

The NTSB's findings

  • Personnel issues › Psychological › Perception/orientation/illusion › Spatial disorientation › Student/instructed pilot
  • Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Experience/qualifications › Qualification/certification › Student/instructed pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Clouds › Contributed to outcome
  • Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Student/instructed pilot
  • Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Clouds › Effect on operation
  • Personnel issues › Psychological › Personality/attitude › Motivation/respond to pressure › Student/instructed pilot
  • Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Experience/qualifications › Qualification/certification › Flt operations/dispatcher

Dual student

  • Certificate: student
  • Flight time: 96 hours in all; 96 in this make and model; 47 in the last 90 days; 15 in the last 30 days; 6 as pilot in command
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 13,103.4 hours
  • Last inspection: approved inspection programme, March 3, 2019; 4 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 2,447 lb
  • Seats: 4
  • Landing gear: fixed
  • Engine: Lycoming O-320-D3G (piston); 1,258 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: VRB Vero Beach FL at 11:57 am
  • Destination: PHK Pahokee FL
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 250° at 8 knots
  • Visibility: 6 statute miles
  • Sky: overcast at 400 ft; not recorded
  • Temperature: 66°F (19°C), dew point 64°F (18°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.00 inHg
  • Observation at 12:03 pm from VRB, 7 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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

21 documents, released by the NTSB on November 17, 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.