Cessna 182P accident near Whitethorn, California, August 4, 2006

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

The airplane impacted a mountain about 1 nautical mile from the departure airport during the en route climb phase of an instrument departure. The airport is on the coast next to the ocean with mountains immediately adjacent to the east that rise to 3,000 feet msl. A witness saw the airplane depart to the south in dense fog with the ground visibility less than 1/4-mile and follow the coastline until entering the fog layer. The witness noted that the direction of flight was unusual; typically, airplanes depart to the north, then turn left over the ocean to avoid the mountains. After the airplane entered the fog layer it climbed to about 500 to 700 feet above ground level (agl) and then made a 90-degree turn to the left toward the mountains. The airspace overlying the airport is Class G and there is no radar coverage in the area below 6,000 feet. The left-seated pilot held an instrument rating; the right-seated pilot did not. Both pilots had made flights together to this airport twice before (about 11 days prior to the accident and 2 days prior to the accident). Numerous residents around the airport reported that a dense fog surrounded the airport and cloaked the mountains. One witness stated that as he drove his automobile up the mountains away from the coastline, he came out of the clouds around 1,300 feet mean sea level (msl). Records maintained at the Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS) disclosed that the pilot contacted the facility twice for weather information. During the first call, about 3 hours prior to departure, she requested a weather briefing. The briefer advised that an AIRMET for instrument flight rule (IFR) conditions was current for the area. He then queried her, "how does it look outside?" The pilot responded by saying, "It's foggy probably visibility is less than 2." During her second telephone call, about 1 hour 45 minutes later, she was again told about the AIRMET for IFR conditions in the coastal areas and she filed an IFR flight plan requesting a direct routing and a 6,000 foot cruise altitude. She called the AFSS again and received her IFR clearance "as filed"; no heading or other departure instructions was requested by the pilot nor given in the clearance. The airport does not have a specified instrument departure. Examination of the accident site revealed that the left wing hit a tree first in a wings level, slightly nose high attitude. Post accident examinations revealed no mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation. The AFSS specialist who read the IFR clearance to the pilot was given the IFR clearance by the Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) controller along with a clearance void time, but not a time check as required. When the pilot did not communicate with the radar controller on or before the void time, the controller transmitted "in the blind" and did not receive a reply. At that time, the controller should have considered the aircraft overdue and made the appropriate notifications, including issuing an Alert Notice (ALNOT), which would have initiated search and rescue efforts. However, the controller, with approval from his supervisor, removed the flight plan from the system. This action deleted any record of the flight and adversely impacted search and rescue efforts. Although the actions of the ARTCC controllers did not cause or contribute to this accident, their performance hindered the timeliness of search and rescue efforts.

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.