Cirrus Crash Near Agua Dulce: Pilot Not Instrument-Rated
An instrument rating entitles a pilot to legally navigate an aircraft when the weather is bad enough that he can't see outside. A pilot who is not instrument-rated must always stay out of the clouds. If the weather is such that he can't do that, he must stay on the ground.
The training required to obtain an instrument rating is extensive. In most cases, it takes a pilot longer and costs him more to obtain the rating than it did for him to get his pilot's license in the first
place. But without an instrument rating, a pilot who flies into clouds will quickly become disor
iented, be unable to keep the aircraft "right side up," lose control of the aircraft, and crash. According to one popular article, the life expectancy of a non-instrument rated pilot who wanders into the clouds is about 178 seconds.
"Technologically advanced aircraft," such as the Cirrus, are equipped with sophisticated autopilots that are capable of keeping the aircraft right side up. That may tempt pilots who don't have instrument ratings to fly through the clouds, thinking they can always rely on the autopilot if things get dicey. But that thinking is illegal and dangerous.
Cirrus N427MC crashed near Agua Dulce, California. The pilot and his two passengers were killed. The weather, according to the NTSB preliminary report, was cloudy. (As the NTSB put it, "instrument meteorological conditions prevailed.") But the pilot, Dale Smet, did not hold an instrument rating. (Though the NTSB report doesn't mention that fact, Smet's piloting credentials can be found here.)
Witness accounts are consistent with this accident being caused by a non-instrument rated pilot venturing into the clouds, losing control of the aircraft, and crashing. According to an article appearing in the Signal, one witness saw the aircraft come out of the clouds while out of control:
[The witness] was riding her horse along Canyon Quail Trail when she heard the plane’s engine. Moments later, she saw a white plane spinning out of the clouds. It flew over her head - the plane was about 40 feet above the ground and plummeting fast.
Other witness accounts are similar.
An overconfident pilot is a dangerous thing.
I happened upon your article and I was struck with an immediate sense of pity not your you or your article, but for any family and friends who might be unlucky enough to read it themselves. This article was both callous and hostile in the way it was written and how the information was presented. Whether factual or not, there is a sense of compassion that is needed when writing about a fatal accident like this. The family or friends just lost their loved ones and here you are spitting in their face as they grieve. Your obvious elitist position comes out clearly in the written text and I will make it a point to avoid this website in the future as a result. There are ways to convey the message without coming across like you did…and its unfortunate that you felt a need to be hateful and vicious about the tragic event. I only hope that upon your death you are remembered for nicer things and in nicer ways than you portray yourself here. I am very sad for you but more sad for families and friends who might read your rants.
Erik-
Thanks for leaving the comment.
For the last 15 years I have devoted my career to helping accident victims and their families. I know that losing a spouse is always devastating. Losing a child is even worse.
If I offended the families involved in this accident or caused them additional pain, I'm sorry. That was not my intent. And if you know anyone who was lost in this accident, you have my sincere condolences.
I did not say that the pilot was a bad person. Nor do I suggest that his life should not be honored and his many good deeds recognized. But this is not a memorial website. It's a blog about aviation accident law. And aviation law is about accountability.
A pilot who flies into the clouds without an instrument rating breaks the law and places the lives of his passengers in danger. There is no room for argument here. If on the day of the accident this particular pilot did that, then he made a bad decision that in all likelihood costed three lives.
It may be hard to hear the likely cause of an accident put so plainly. But that doesn't make it an inappropriate thing to say.
You characterize what I wrote as hateful and vicious. I don't think that's the case. I've read that the pilot was a good guy and a loving family man. I've said nothing to suggest otherwise. In fact, I've said nothing about the man at all. Only about the decision he made.
Mike Danko
I have been an aviation professional 45 years, and have sold well over 1000 aircraft in my career. The manufacturers (Cirrus in this case) have never shown
a consistant concern for aviation safety. Aircraft such as but not limited to the Cirrus should not be sold to, or insured by insurance companies until the pilots are IFR rated, and can demonstrate the
proficiency needed to be safe pilots. Aircraft accidents like this could be avoidable if higher minimum standards were implemented by insurance companies, and perhaps the FAA in concert. Aviation safety should supercede the bottom line.
Erik
How would you "convey the message" nicer? The pilot had no business being where he was and as a result killed himself and his passengers. How would you dress that up? Or would you just leave the cause as a mystery, as did the NTSB's report and the news articles?
Guys like this pilot give the rest of aviation a bad name. I feel bad for his famiily. but I'm madder than hell at him.
Erik
If reading Mike's blog discourages even one non instrument- rated pilot from flying into the clouds, then Mike delivered on his aviation safety mission effectively. I read his blog again very carefully and have determined that the only hateful and vicious rant came from you.
That kind of thinking definitely is dangerous. These aircraft have the sophisticated autopilots for a reason.