Cessna 205 accident near Flagstaff, Arizona, January 23, 2009
On January 23, 2009 at about 1:55 pm local time, a Cessna 205, registered N8298Z, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (climb to cruise) near Flagstaff, Arizona (Flagstaff Pulliam Airport). It was a business flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). 2 people were killed. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's loss of situational awareness and failure to maintain clearance from hilly terrain while flying in an area of a low cloud ceiling. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to continue flight due to a self-induced pressure.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- January 23, 2009 · about 1:55 pm local time
- Place
- Flagstaff, Arizona · Flagstaff Pulliam Airport · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- 2 people were killed.
- Weather
- instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 205
- Registration
- N8298Z · no longer on the register · serial 205-0298
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Business flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The purpose of the flight was for the pilots to attend a business meeting. The left-seated pilot, a private pilot, owned the airplane and the right-seated pilot held an instrument rating; it could not be determined who was the pilot-in-command at the time of the accident. The left-seated pilot had a self-induced stress of completing the flight and attending the meeting as he was concerned about his company's financial health. The right-seated pilot's pressure to depart likely stemmed from him dedicating over a year preparing items to be presented in the meeting. The left-seated pilot had great confidence in the right-seated pilot's flying ability and history in operating in inclement environments, which most likely contributed to his decision to depart in poor weather conditions. An audio recording of the airplane just prior to the accident revealed that the engine was producing high power and the airplane was traveling at an airspeed of about 130 knots. The airplane crashed into a hill bordering an interstate about 10 miles south of the departure airport and in the direction of the destination. The wreckage distribution was consistent with the airplane in a relatively level flight attitude during a high speed impact. An airline pilot, who departed about 30 minutes after the accident airplane, stated that the cloud layer was about 1,000 feet above ground level (agl). At the time of the accident, the departure airport's weather observation facility reported a broken cloud layer at 800 feet; an overcast layer at 1,500 feet and remarked that a cloud ceiling varied between 700 feet and 1,100 feet. Recordings between the Automated Flight Service Station (AFSS) and the left-seated pilot revealed that he was open to perform the flight as an instrument flight rules (IFR) operation, but opted not to. Just prior to the flight the AFSS briefer reiterated that visual flight rules (VFR) flight was not recommended. Post accident examinations revealed no mechanical anomalies with the airframe or engine that would have precluded normal operation.
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
- Controlled flight into terrain or object (CFIT) during enroute (climb to cruise) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft oper/perf/capability › Performance/control parameters › Altitude › Not attained/maintained
- factor Personnel issues › Action/decision › Info processing/decision › Decision making/judgment › Pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Psychological › Perception/orientation/illusio › Spatial disorientation › Pilot
- Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Low ceiling › Effect on operation
- Environmental issues › Conditions/weather/phenomena › Ceiling/visibility/precip › Clouds › Effect on operation
- Environmental issues › Physical environment › Terrain › Mountainous/hilly terrain › Response/compensation
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 1,550 hours in all
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: fatal
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 2,500 hours in all
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: fatal
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 5,017 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, May 16, 2008
- Maximum gross weight: 3,300 lb
- Seats: 6
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine: Teledyne Continental Motors IO-470-S (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: FLG Flagstaff AZ at 1:45 pm
- Destination: 2V6 Yuma AZ
- Flight plan: none
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: night, dark
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 800 ft; clear
- Temperature: 39°F (4°C), dew point 39°F (4°C)
- Altimeter: 30.22 inHg
- Observation at 1:59 pm from FLG, 9 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 2 |
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.
