Cirrus Design Corp SR22 G2 accident near Norden, California, February 7, 2005
On February 7, 2005 at about 2:20 am local time, a Cirrus Design Corp SR22 G2, registered N286CD, was destroyed in an accident near Norden, California. 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 in-flight loss of control following an inadvertent encounter with unforecast severe icing conditions. A factor in the accident was the inaccurate icing forecast developed by the NWS Aviation Weather Center.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- February 7, 2005 · about 2:20 am local time
- Place
- Norden, California · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 1 person was killed.
- Weather
- instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
- Aircraft
- Cirrus Design Corp SR22 G2 · all SR22 G2s on the register
- Registration
- N286CD · no longer on the register · serial 1235
- Damage
- Destroyed
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The airplane, while operating under an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan, departed from controlled flight after encountering icing conditions, entered an uncontrolled descent, and collided with the ground. The airplane was equipped with an Ice Protection System that when activated supplied deicing fluid to the wings, tail, and propeller. The aircraft was not certified for flight into known icing and the Pilot Operating Handbook reads that, "Flight into known icing conditions is prohibited." The pilot received a preflight weather briefing, which advised that there were no pilot weather reports (PIREP) for the intended route of flight, and that the freezing level in the Reno area was 6,000 feet with no precipitation. There were no valid SIGMET's or AIRMET's for icing conditions along the pilot's route. The pilot filed his IFR flight plan for 12,000 feet, but indicated he might request 14,000 feet once airborne. After takeoff, at 1807:46, the pilot contacted Oakland Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) and requested to climb to 16,000 feet to try to get above the clouds. At 1813:40, the pilot reported that he was still in the clouds and asked about going lower. At 1815:00, the pilot advised ARTCC that if he could go up another 200 to 300 feet, he could get above the clouds. ARTCC requested clarification if the pilot wanted to go up or down. The pilot responded that he would like to go up first to build up some airspeed. The pilot was cleared for a block altitude between 16,000 to 17,000 feet. About 2 minutes later, the pilot transmitted that he was "coming down" and that he was "icing up." The last transmission from the pilot was at 1817:42, again indicating that he was icing up and coming down. According to investigators from Ballistic Recovery Systems (BRS), following the examination of the ballistic parachute system, they determined the system was deployed outside of the operating envelope of the system, which is 133 knots indicated airspeed. An examination of the airplane wreckage did not reveal any evidence of preimpact mechanical failures or malfunctions. Analysis of the actual weather conditions encountered revealed the likelihood that the pilot encountered severe icing related to super-cooled large water droplets as the aircraft achieved 16,000 feet and above. Review of the weather forecast products available at the time of the pilot's briefing disclosed that the AFSS briefing fully conformed to Federal Aviation Administration standards and adequately covered the observed and forecast weather conditions. Although post accident analysis of the weather conditions showed the clear likelihood of severe icing conditions, the algorithms used by the NWS Aviation Weather Center to predict icing conditions showed only a low probability of icing in the area, and, in the absence of PIREPs to the contrary, an icing forecast was not triggered.
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
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 473 hours in all; 69 in this make and model; 100 in the last 90 days; 39 in the last 30 days; 347 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: December 1, 2004
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: unk
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 100.1 hours
- Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, January 1, 2005; 47.7 hours since
- Maximum gross weight: 3,400 lb
- Seats: 4
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Teledyne Continental IO-550-N (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: RNO Reno NV at 1:53 am
- Destination: OAK Oakland CA
- Flight plan: IFR
Weather at the time
- Light: dusk
- Wind: from 240° at 6 knots
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: overcast at 10,000 ft
- Temperature: 37°F (3°C), dew point 28°F (-2°C)
- Altimeter: 29.87 inHg
- Observation at 1:10 am from TRK, 9 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Crew | 1 |
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.
