CEN24LA100

Factual narrative

On January 26, 2024, about 1755 central daylight time, a Beechcraft BE58, N811CW, was substantially damaged when it was involved in an accident near Deridder, Louisiana. The pilot and one passenger were not injured. The airplane was operated as a Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 personal flight. ADS-B data provided by the Federal Aviation Administration showed the airplane departed Abilene Regional Airport (ABI), Abilene, Texas, about 1714. The flight’s intended destination was Abbeville Chris Crusta Memorial Airport (IYA), Abbeville, Louisiana. While en route, the airplane encountered thunderstorm which contained heavy rain, severe turbulence, and hail and the flight diverted to Chennault International Airport (CWF), Lake Charles, Louisiana (see Figure 1). Figure 1. Route of Flight (ADS-B data) The pilot stated that he had flown from IYA to ABI earlier that day and was on a return flight to IYA when the accident occurred. He said his biggest concern for the flight was convective activity and that he flew below the freezing level to avoid any threats from icing. He obtained a weather briefing from ForeFlight for both flights. The pilot said the airplane was equipped with a Garmin 750, which had XM Satellite NEXRAD imagery but did not have airborne weather radar. He had been monitoring the weather for 50-60 miles before the weather encounter, which his NEXRAD showed south of his route and air traffic control (ATC) confirmed. He did not notice any significant movement of the weather return echoes. The pilot described his Garmin display as having three levels – green-yellow-red. He couldn’t recall his distance from the “echoes” at the time of the weather encounter but indicated he was attempting to remain outside of all the “echoes.” He believed ATC and his display were in agreement, and that the latency was consistent at 3-5 minutes between images. According to ATC recordings, the air traffic controller at the Houston Air Route Traffic Control Center, communicated with the pilot, at 1743:48 (#1 on Figure 2). The controller notified the pilot that there were areas of moderate, heavy, and extreme precipitation about 25 miles ahead of him. The controller offered the pilot a northerly course of about 075-080° and a southerly course as options to navigate through gaps in the reported weather. The pilot chose the northerly heading and changed course about 2 minutes later to about 080°. Figure 2. Location of ATC communications / events At 1745:27 (#2 on Figure 2), shortly after the pilot turned to the 080° heading, the controller offered a third option of flying 025-030° further north before turning east. The controller explained that this would put the pilot in a larger area of only moderate precipitation but would avoid having to fly through a gap in the weather cells. The pilot replied that he would maintain his current heading and would let ATC know if he decided to turn to the 025-030° heading. At 1747:28 (#3 on Figure 2), the controller asked the pilot, “do you have weather radar on board?” The pilot replied, “affirm.” At 1749:39 (#4 on Figure 2), the controller asked the pilot if he was seeing the area of storms they had previously discussed about 10-15° off to his left. It is unclear what the pilot said on the audio recordings in response to this question. The controller then told the pilot that there were areas of embedded heavy precipitation at 12 o’clock about 20 miles ahead and more at 11-12 o’clock about 25 miles ahead. The controller relayed to the pilot that it might be possible to navigate through the gap between the two areas of heavy precipitation or that the pilot could “continue east” referring to the 025°-030° course suggestion given earlier. At 1754:10 (#5 on Figure 2), the airplane turned left to a heading of about 040°. At 1755:04 (#6 on Figure 2), The pilot transmitted to the controller, “in severe turbulence, turbulence and hail for one charlie whisky.” In the communications that followed between the pilot and the controller, the pilot communicated that the airplane was damaged and he would like to divert, which led to a landing without incident at Chennault International Airport. The pilot had flown the reverse route earlier in the day and was on the return flight in night instrument meteorological conditions when the accident occurred. The airplane sustained substantial damage when it encountered a thunderstorm that contained heavy rain, severe turbulence, and hail during cruise flight. The pilot landed the airplane without further incident. The pilot was aware of the weather front along his route of flight and was monitoring it using Next-Generation Weather Radar (NEXRAD) imagery delivered via XM Satellite during his flight. The pilot was also communicating with air traffic control to establish a route between weather cells with high to extreme precipitation. When asked by air traffic control if he had weather radar on board, the pilot responded that he did. The pilot had NEXRAD weather imagery, which has a time lag from when the image is created to when it is displayed to the pilot. NEXRAD is not an airborne weather radar system, which would have provided real time weather information. It is likely that the controller, based on the pilot’s response, believed the pilot could see the weather in real time verses the latency involved in using NEXRAD imagery. This information likely affected the controller’s suggestions to the pilot regarding possible routes through the weather front. Although he was aware of the time lag in images, it is likely that the pilot did not fully appreciate the actual lag time of the weather imagery he was using to make his route choices. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12

NTSB Findings

FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.

• — Environmental issues-Conditions/weather/phenomena-Turbulence-Convective turbulence-Effect on equipment
• — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Use of equip/system-Pilot