CEN10LA103

Factual narrative

On January 16, 2010, at 1940 central standard time, a Cessna 177RG, N53120, collided with the terrain approximately one-half mile west of the airport while on the instrument landing system (ILS) runway 09 approach at the Eastern Iowa Airport (CID), Cedar Rapids, Iowa. The private instrument rated pilot and two passengers were seriously injured. The airplane received substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. The 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight was operating on and instrument flight plan in instrument meteorological conditions. The flight originated from the Clermont County Airport (I69), Batavia, Ohio, at 1705 eastern standard time. The original destination for the flight was the Monticello Regional Airport (MXO), Monticello, Iowa. While en route, it was determined that MXO was below weather minimums so the flight diverted to CID. The pilot reported the airplane had two Garmin 530s, a Wide Area Augmentation System (WAAS), and the global positioning system (GPS) steering was slaved to the autopilot. He stated he had one receiver/navigation unit tuned to the GPS runway 9 approach and the other tuned to the ILS runway 9 approach. He stated that with the autopilot he can select course via the GPS or the heading bug. The pilot stated that during the approach he began receiving conflicting information between the GPS and the ILS. He then noticed that he lost the receiver autonomous integrity monitoring (RAIM) system. The pilot initiated a missed approach and climbed back into visual meteorological conditions where he received vectors for a second approach. The pilot reported he began the inbound leg of the second approach with both the GPS and the ILS in agreement. He stated he had trouble maintaining the glideslope and he had to keep adding power to maintain a proper descent rate. The pilot stated the top glideslope indicator began displaying erratic information with the glideslope needle rapidly changing from a full up deflection to a full down deflection. The pilot stated he was at full power at this point, so he did not have additional power in order to climb for a missed approach. He stated the bottom ILS indication was more stable, but it too began showing “…oscillating vertical deflections.” The pilot stated that at an altitude of approximately 600 feet above the ground, he felt the right wing rise, which he believes was a result of the left wing stalling. He stated the directional gyro then indicated that he was in a left turn, which he tried to correct, but could not. He stated he was in “some kind of spin” or unusual attitude with the “nose slightly downward and tilted slightly to the left.” The pilot reported the last memory he has prior to impact was pulling up. The airplane impacted the terrain in an open field. Air traffic control radar data indicated from the time the airplane was established on the approach up until the last minute of data available, the aircraft’s ground track varied from 97 degrees to 70 degrees, with a descent rate of approximately 500 feet per minute. The airplane’s rate of descent during the last 46 seconds of radar data, increased to about 800 feet per minute and the heading changed from 95 degrees to 119 degrees, then to 13 degrees. The pilot received his instrument pilot rating approximately 2 weeks prior to the accident. He reported having about 5 hours of actual instrument experience and 72 hours of simulated instrument experience. Following the accident both the ILS and GPS approaches were flight checked by the Federal Aviation Administration and no discrepancies were found. The pilot's original destination was below weather minimums so he diverted to another airport. He flew the approach to runway 9 with one receiver/navigational unit tuned to the global positioning system (GPS) approach and one tuned to the instrument landing system (ILS) approach. He reported that he began getting conflicting information between the GPSs so he executed a missed approach. The pilot reported that during the second approach he had trouble maintaining the glideslope and he had to keep adding power to maintain a proper descent rate. He then received erratic information and needle oscillations on both glideslope indicators. The pilot stated that he was at full power, so he did not have additional power in order to climb for a missed approach. The pilot believes that the left wing stalled about 600 feet above the ground. He stated that he was in “some kind of spin” or unusual attitude with the “nose slightly downward and tilted slightly to the left.” The pilot reported that the last memory he has prior to impact was pulling up. The airplane impacted the terrain in an open field, which resulted in substantial damage to the fuselage and left wing. Radar data indicated that from the time the airplane was established on the approach up until the last minute of data available, the aircraft’s ground track varied from 97 degrees to 70 degrees, with a descent rate of approximately 500 feet per minute. The airplane’s rate of descent during the last 46 seconds of radar data increased to about 800 feet per minute and the heading changed from 95 degrees to 119 degrees, then to 13 degrees. The approaches were checked after the accident with no anomalies found. The pilot received his instrument rating two weeks prior to the accident. He reported having about 5 hours of actual instrument flight time and about 72 hours of simulated instrument flight time. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
• — Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Ceiling/visibility/precip-Low ceiling-Effect on operation
• F Personnel issues-Experience/knowledge-Experience/qualifications-Total instrument experience-Pilot - F
• C Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-(general)-Not attained/maintained - C