What happened
The FAA’s narrative, in sentence case. The FAA writes it in capitals and removes private details.
(.4) The pilot departed Florida and made a fuel stop in Virginia. Later during a night precision instrument approach under IMC to farmingdale, new york, the airplane struck trees. The pilot executed a missed approach that did not comply with published procedures, and was then offered several alternate airports, some under VMC. The pilot chose an airport which was IMC, and for which he did not have the precision approach charts. The approach information was provided by air traffic control. During the approach, the pilot was advised by the tower controller that his landing lights could be seen over the approach end of the runway as the airplane was 'going back into the clouds.' The airplane was next observed well left of the runway. The pilot was asked his altitude and he responded '300 feet.' The tower controller gave the pilot a vector and told him to contact approach control, and the airplane disappeared into the clouds again. The airplane then exited the base of the clouds in a right descending turn and struck the ground. Radar data revealed erratic altitudes on the glideslope and during vectors. The accident airport did not have an approach lighting system to the prec ision approach runway. In January 1995, the safety board issued a recommendation to install an approach lighting system to that runway 'as soon as possible.' (-23) aircraft crashed after making an ILS approach. Aircraft may have been damaged during an earlier approach at frg. The pilot received fatal injuries.
As the FAA filed it
(.4) THE PILOT DEPARTED FLORIDA AND MADE A FUEL STOP IN VIRGINIA. LATER DURING A NIGHT PRECISION INSTRUMENT APPROACH UNDER IMC TO FARMINGDALE, NEW YORK, THE AIRPLANE STRUCK TREES. THE PILOT EXECUTED A MISSED APPROACH THAT DID NOT COMPLY WITH PUBLISHED PROCEDURES, AND WAS THEN OFFERED SEVERAL ALTERNATE AIRPORTS, SOME UNDER VMC. THE PILOT CHOSE AN AIRPORT WHICH WAS IMC, AND FOR WHICH HE DID NOT HAVE THE PRECISION APPROACH CHARTS. THE APPROACH INFORMATION WAS PROVIDED BY AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL. DURING THE APPROACH, THE PILOT WAS ADVISED BY THE TOWER CONTROLLER THAT HIS LANDING LIGHTS COULD BE SEEN OVER THE APPROACH END OF THE RUNWAY AS THE AIRPLANE WAS 'GOING BACK INTO THE CLOUDS.' THE AIRPLANE WAS NEXT OBSERVED WELL LEFT OF THE RUNWAY. THE PILOT WAS ASKED HIS ALTITUDE AND HE RESPONDED '300 FEET.' THE TOWER CONTROLLER GAVE THE PILOT A VECTOR AND TOLD HIM TO CONTACT APPROACH CONTROL, AND THE AIRPLANE DISAPPEARED INTO THE CLOUDS AGAIN. THE AIRPLANE THEN EXITED THE BASE OF THE CLOUDS IN A RIGHT DESCENDING TURN AND STRUCK THE GROUND. RADAR DATA REVEALED ERRATIC ALTITUDES ON THE GLIDESLOPE AND DURING VECTORS. THE ACCIDENT AIRPORT DID NOT HAVE AN APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM TO THE PREC ISION APPROACH RUNWAY. IN JANUARY 1995, THE SAFETY BOARD ISSUED A RECOMMENDATION TO INSTALL AN APPROACH LIGHTING SYSTEM TO THAT RUNWAY 'AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.' (-23) AIRCRAFT CRASHED AFTER MAKING AN ILS APPROACH. AIRCRAFT MAY HAVE BEEN DAMAGED DURING AN EARLIER APPROACH AT FRG. THE PILOT RECEIVED FATAL INJURIES.
NTSB investigation
The NTSB’s investigation of this event, with its probable cause and findings. Matched to this report by N-number and date.