NTSB CAROL · Event
Event CEN14FA051
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The noninstrument-rated private pilot's decision to continue a visual flight rules flight into instrument meteorological conditions, which resulted in the loss of airplane control. Contributing to the accident was the pilot’s failure to obtain a weather briefing before departure.
Factual narrative
HISTORY OF FLIGHTOn November 12, 2013, about 0945 central standard time, a Cessna T310R, N38LH, was destroyed when it impacted terrain near Junction, Texas. A postimpact fire ensued. The non-instrument rated private pilot and his passenger were fatally injured. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot under the provisions of 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 as a personal flight. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed in the area and the flight operated without a flight plan. The flight departed Giddings-Lee County Airport (KGYB), Giddings, Texas, approximately 0830 and was en route to Sonora Municipal Airport (KSOA), Sonora, Texas. Several witnesses located at the Texas Tech University campus, on the west side of Junction, Texas, heard the accident airplane. One witness described the airplane and engine noise being consistent with the airplane flying in circles. Another witness stated that the airplane sounded like it was very low and moving quickly. Several witnesses heard the engine noise increase like the airplane was descending followed by a loud boom or the sound of an impact. Only one witness reported seeing the airplane prior to the accident. This witness looked in the direction of the engine noise and observed the airplane for only a few seconds before it impacted the ground. The other witnesses reported seeing low clouds and fog which hindered them from seeing the airplane that was making the noise. The witnesses reported seeing black smoke followed by white smoke which quickly dissipated due to the winds. The pilot did not communicate with air traffic control during the flight. Radar data for the accident flight was not available due to antenna site locations. PERSONNEL INFORMATIONThe pilot, age 39, held a private pilot certificate with airplane single and multiengine ratings last issued on September 19, 2013. He was issued a third class airman medical certificate without limitations on June 27, 2013. The pilot's logbook was found within the wreckage. A review of the logbook indicated that the pilot had logged no less than 410 hours in airplanes, 16 hours of which were logged in multiengine airplanes, and 16 hours in the same make and model of the accident airplane. The pilot had logged 3 hours of simulated instrument experience over two days in July 2006 as part of the pilot's private pilot training. These 3 hours were logged in a single engine Cessna 172. According to training records obtained from American Flyers in Addison, Texas, the pilot started flight training for a multiengine rating on July 29, 2013. He obtained both ground and flight training from American Flyers and successfully completed his checkride on September 19, 2013. At the time of his checkride, he had logged 11.5 hours in multiengine airplanes. AIRCRAFT INFORMATIONThe accident airplane, a Cessna T310R (serial number 310R1886), was manufactured in 1980. It was registered with the Federal Aviation Administration on a standard airworthiness certificate for normal operations. Two Teledyne Continental Motors TSIO-520-EB engines rated at 300 horsepower at 2,700 rpm, with RAM Aircraft conversions, powered the airplane. Both engines were equipped with a 3-blade, Hartzell propeller. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot, and was maintained under an annual inspection program. The pilot purchased the airplane and registered it with the FAA in July of 2013. The maintenance records were not located during the investigation. When the pilot purchased the airplane, it had a total airframe time of 3,986 hours; 769 hours since the RAM 300 HP conversion had been completed, and 54 hours since the ECi Cerminil cylinders had been installed. According to sales documents, the annual inspection had been completed in January of 2013. METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATIONInfrared satellite imagery of south central Texas displayed overcast clouds directly over the accident site. The image depicted generally uniform cloud tops from KGYB to the accident location with cloud top heights around 6,500 feet mean sea level (msl). The cloud tops around the accident site were around 9,500 feet msl. Doppler weather radar did not depict precipitation returns in the area at the time of the accident. The National Weather Service (NWS) had issued AIRMET (Airman's Meteorological Information) TANGO for moderate turbulence below 8,000 feet along the route of flight. AIRMET SIERRA for ceilings below 1,000 feet, visibility below 3 statute miles in precipitation and mist existed for the portion of the flight from Austin, to the west along the remainder of the accident flight route. These conditions were forecast to end between 1200 and 1500 on the day of the accident. The closest official weather observation station was Kimble County Airport (KJCT), Junction, Texas, located 2.4 nautical miles (nm) northeast of the accident site. The elevation of the weather observation station was 1,754 feet msl. The routine aviation weather report (METAR) for KJCT, issued at 0851, approximately one hour prior to the accident, reported wind 020 degrees at 16 knots, gusting to 22 knots, visibility 6 miles in mist, sky condition overcast clouds at 800 feet, temperature 09 degrees Celsius (C), dew point temperature 08 degrees C, altimeter 30.53 inches. The METAR for KJCT at 0951 reported wind 040 at 9 knots, visibility 8 miles, sky condition, overcast at 800 feet, temperature 08 degrees C, dew point 06 degrees C, altimeter 30.58 inches. The METAR for KSOA (the destination airport), issued at 0935 reported wind 020 degrees at 24 knots gusting to 28 knots, visibility 10 miles, sky condition overcast clouds at 800 feet, temperature 07 degrees C, dew point 04 degrees C, altimeter 30.60 inches. There was no record that the pilot obtained a weather briefing from the FAA Flight Service Station or Direct User Access Terminal System (DUATS). It could not be determined which resources were used by the pilot prior to the flight. AIRPORT INFORMATIONThe accident airplane, a Cessna T310R (serial number 310R1886), was manufactured in 1980. It was registered with the Federal Aviation Administration on a standard airworthiness certificate for normal operations. Two Teledyne Continental Motors TSIO-520-EB engines rated at 300 horsepower at 2,700 rpm, with RAM Aircraft conversions, powered the airplane. Both engines were equipped with a 3-blade, Hartzell propeller. The airplane was registered to and operated by the pilot, and was maintained under an annual inspection program. The pilot purchased the airplane and registered it with the FAA in July of 2013. The maintenance records were not located during the investigation. When the pilot purchased the airplane, it had a total airframe time of 3,986 hours; 769 hours since the RAM 300 HP conversion had been completed, and 54 hours since the ECi Cerminil cylinders had been installed. According to sales documents, the annual inspection had been completed in January of 2013. WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATIONThe accident scene was located in hilly, rocky, forested terrain, 1.3 nautical miles southwest of Junction, Texas. The terrain was vegetated with coniferous cedar trees. The wreckage was located at an elevation of 2,000 feet msl, and the wreckage and debris was distributed along a heading of 121 degrees. The initial impact point was located at the top of a cedar tree. Damage to the branches at the top of the tree was oriented at an angle of between 50 and 60 degrees relative to the horizon. A second impact point and the first ground scar were located directly to the east and beneath the cedar tree. Plastic, fiberglass, and metal were located within this initial ground scar, consistent with the empennage of the airplane. A large ground scar and debris field continued to the east towards larger sections of the airplane. The main portion of the debris field extended to the east for 475 feet. Trees, tree limbs, and branches were broken in the direction of impact and were scattered along the debris field. The right fuel tank was located to the north of the debris field. Broken, fragmented, crushed, and torn metal consistent with the aileron, flap, and wing were found in line with the fuel tank to the north of the debris field. The metal was crushed, fragmented, and exhibited exposure to heat and fire. Broken, fragmented, crushed, and torn metal consistent with the left elevator, left aileron, and left tip tank were located on south side of the debris field. The metal exhibited exposure to heat and fire. Fragmented metal from the fuselage and rudder, torn insulation, wire bundles, and engine components were located periodically, at various intervals along the debris field. The nose landing gear, upper inboard wing skin, one main landing gear assembly (wheel, tire, and strut), and portions of a propeller blade were located on the north side of the debris field to the east of the initial impact point. The metal exhibited exposure to heat and fire. A propeller assembly which included two blades and remained attached at the propeller hub, came to rest adjacent to a tree further in the debris field. One engine also separated from the airplane and was located in the debris field. The engine exhibited impact and fire damage. A wooden post and barbed wire fence ran from north to south, intersecting the debris field. Debris continued past the fence to the east including one propeller blade, several cylinders, fragmented portions of the engine and crankshaft, main landing gear tire, wheel and strut, and fragmented engine components. The components exhibited impact and fire damage. ADDITIONAL INFORMATIONAccording to several sources, the pilot had recently purchased the airplane and always flew with either a flight instructor or a family member who was also a pilot. On the day of the accident, the pilot was supposed to fly with that family member; however, the family member was unable to join the pilot for the flight. MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATIONAn autopsy of both occupants was performed by the Central Texas Autopsy on November 13, 2013, as authorized by the Kimble County Justice of the Peace. The autopsies concluded that the cause of death was multiple blunt force injuries and the report listed the specific injuries. The FAA's Civil Aerospace Medical Institute (CAMI), Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, performed toxicological tests on specimens that were collected during the autopsy (CAMI Reference #201300223001 and 201300223002). Tests for carbon monoxide and cyanide were not performed. Results were negative for volatiles and drugs. TESTS AND RESEARCHThe wreckage was recovered and relocated to a storage facility in Lancaster, Texas. The airframe and both engines were fragmented. The pieces of wing and stabilizer exhibited fore to aft accordion crushing along the entire span. Due to the impact and fire damage, investigators were unable to confirm control continuity. All separation points were consistent with overstress and impact damage. Due to impact and fire damage, investigators were unable to confirm the condition of either engine prior to the accident. The propeller blades were bent, bowed, curled, twisted and exhibited significant scoring along the entire span of the blade. The leadings edges of the blades were missing pieces and sections. The blades on both turbocharger assemblies were bent opposite the direction of rotation and exhibited damage consistent with rotation at the time of impact. The instrument panel was fragmented and the instruments did not provide any reliable readings. Investigators were not able to determine the functional condition of the vacuum system or related instruments. The vacuum pumps were impact damaged. The noninstrument-rated private pilot departed on a cross-country flight without obtaining a weather briefing from a flight service station or the Direct User Access Terminal System, and he did not communicate with air traffic control during the flight. Existing weather advisories for instrument flight rules conditions along the intended route of flight had been issued. Radar data was not available for the flight due to antenna site locations, so the airplane's flight path and flight altitudes could not be determined. Witnesses near the accident site reported overcast skies, fog, drizzle, and windy weather conditions. They also reported hearing sounds consistent with an airplane circling and then sounds consistent with a rapid descent followed by the sound of an impact. Postaccident examination revealed damage and fragmentation to the airplane consistent with a nose-low attitude and high velocity at the time of impact. Weather observations and satellite imagery showed that a layer of overcast clouds was present over the accident site with a base at about 800 feet above ground level (about 2,600 feet mean sea level) and tops at about 9,500 feet mean sea level. It is likely that the pilot encountered instrument meteorological conditions and subsequently lost control of the airplane. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
- — Personnel issues-Experience/knowledge-Experience/qualifications-Total instrument experience-Pilot
- C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Info processing/decision-Decision making/judgment-Pilot - C
- C Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Ceiling/visibility/precip-Below VFR minima-Effect on personnel - C
- F Personnel issues-Task performance-Planning/preparation-Weather planning-Pilot - F
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2013_CEN14FA051.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (stall, turbulence, maintenance). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2025 · Journal article (JAAER)
Political Turbulence and Aviation Safety: A Cross-National Analysis of Political Stability's Effects on Aviation Accidents
To what extent does political stability affect aviation safety? This research aims to link domestic political conditions and public safety through the consideration of aviation accident frequency.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2023 · Conference paper
The Value of Strong Partnerships to Build a Successful Aviation Maintenance Career Pathway Program for Transitioning Military Service Members
The aerospace industry is competing with other industries for a qualified workforce, and many of those competing industries are investing heavily in creating workforce development pipelines.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2021 · Journal article (IJAAA)
Comparative Study on the Prediction of Aerodynamic Characteristics of Mini - Unmanned Aerial Vehicle with Turbulence Models
When dealing with CFD simulations the turbulent nature is seen on most of the engineering flows and these flows need to be solved.
- arXiv 2020 · arXiv preprint
Numerical Simulation of Iced Wing Using Separating Shear Layer Fixed Turbulence Models
Aerodynamic prediction of glaze ice accretion on airfoils and wing is studied using the Reynolds-averaged Navier-Stokes method.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper
Prediction of stall and post-stall behavior of airfoils at low and high Reynolds numbers
An interactive boundary-layer method, together with the e(super n)-approach to the calculation of transition, has been used to predict the stall and post-stall behavior of airfoils at low and high Rey…
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA)
From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗