WPR18LA227 · Cessna 182 Q

The pilot-rated passenger reported that the accident pilot fueled the airplane then conducted a short formation flight of two airplanes with the accident airplane in the lead to a backcountry airstrip. The trail pilot reported that, during the briefing for the return flight, he and the accident pilot decided to take off to the north parallel to the west side of a river, and shortly after, to turn left 180° toward the south back toward the departure airport. According to the pilot-rated passenger, during takeoff and initial climb, the engine was producing power, and the airplane climbed as expected. The trail pilot, who watched the takeoff, confirmed that the takeoff and initial climb seemed normal. Shortly thereafter, the trail pilot saw the accident pilot make a 90° left turn toward the west and head up a canyon, which he said confused him because “you cannot out climb the rising terrain to the west, and it is a tight little canyon to turn in.” He indicated in a postaccident statement that he then asked the accident pilot, “where are you going? And, the pilot replied, “we’re going down.” The trail pilot indicated that he then asked the accident pilot if he was going “downstream,” and the accident pilot responded, “’crashing’ or something similar.” He received no further communication from the accident pilot. The pilot-rated passenger stated that he was unaware of any issues with the airplane before the accident pilot’s exchange with the trail pilot. He added that, after the accident, the accident pilot told him that he thought that the loss of lift was due to the airplane encountering a downdraft. He then looked at the cockpit panel and saw that the manifold pressure gauge was reading 20 inches of manifold pressure. He opined that the engine was not producing power and that the airplane was descending. According to the pilot-rated passenger, the accident pilot then said he was going “to put the[air]plane in some trees.” The passenger stated that the accident pilot turned slightly to the left, he managed the airspeed, and then the airplane settled into a stand of trees “slow and level” as the stall warning horn was “chirping.” The airplane became lodged in the trees about 10 to 12 ft above the ground. When the passenger noticed fire emanating from the engine cowling, he and the accident pilot egressed the airplane. Shortly thereafter, the airplane exploded and was subsequently consumed by fire.

Examination of the area that bordered the departure route revealed that it was very confined with a turn radius of about 800 ft and that rising terrain higher than 6,500 ft mean sea level existed on the east and west sides of the north/south-oriented river.

The airframe and engine were destroyed by the postimpact fire; however, examination of the available evidence did not reveal any mechanical failures or malfunctions that would have precluded normal operation. Based on the accident pilot’s conversation with the pilot-rated passenger, the airplane likely lost altitude due to an inadvertent encounter with downdraft conditions, and due to the loss of altitude, the confined area of the canyon did not allow the pilot to attempt the 180° course reversal. The pilot continued heading upstream in the middle of the canyon to make a precautionary landing to unsuitable mountainous terrain at the slowest airspeed possible while maintaining airplane control as it collided with trees.

Verbatim NTSB analysis and probable cause from the NTSB dataset