FTW95LA128

According to the pilot, visual meteorological conditions (VMC) were forecast for both his destination, gunnison, CO and his alternate, Montrose, CO. During flight he determined that the head winds were stronger than forecast resulting in increased fuel usage. He decided to continue to gunnison based on inflight information given to him that VMC prevailed. Arriving in gunnison, instrument meteorological conditions (IMC) existed, and the pilot made an ILS approach. The approach was missed and he diverted to his alternate, Montrose. En route the pilot advised ATC he was low on fuel. He crossfed the left engine from the right fuel tank because the left tank was empty. The pilot made an ILS approach to Montrose. At decision height, the runway environment was not in sight. Because of the critical fuel state, poor weather conditions, and surrounding high terrain, the pilot elected to land in a field he had sighted. The airplane touched down in mud and nosed over. Occasional IFR conditions and mountain obscuration for the accident vicinity were forecast in pertinent airmets prior to and during the flight.

On March 1, 1995, at approximately 1040 mountain standard time (all times are mountain standard time unless otherwise noted), a Beech 58P, N208DK, was destroyed when it impacted terrain during a landing approach at Montrose, Colorado. The private pilot-in- command and commercial rated pilot/passenger were seriously injured. Instrument meteorological conditions prevailed and an instrument flight rules (IFR) flight plan had been filed. The business flight, conducted under Title 14, Code of Federal Regulations, Part 91, originated at Fort Worth, Texas, at 0600.

The following is based on written pilot statements submitted along with the pilot/operator report. The pilot and his passenger obtained several independent weather briefings and filed an IFR plan and departed Fort Worth, Texas. Visual meteorological conditions were forecasted for both Gunnison and Montrose, Colorado, their destination and alternate, respectively.

The pilot stated that while en route, it was determined that head winds had become stronger than forecasted; resulting in increased fuel consumption. The pilot made the decision to continue to Gunnison. He based this decision on inflight information given to him "in general terms"of the prevailing visual meteorological conditions that reportedly existed at his destination.

Upon arriving in the Gunnison area, the sky was obscured and it was snowing. The pilot executed an instrument landing system approach to runway 6. At decision height, the pilot made a missed approach because he was unable to visually acquire the runway environment. It was determined that sufficient fuel remained to divert to his alternate airport, 45 miles to the west. En route, to Montrose, however, the pilot advised Denver Air Route Traffic Control Center (ARTCC) that he was low on fuel.

He was forced to crossfeed the left engine from the right fuel tank because the left tank was empty.

An ILS approach was executed to runway 17 at Montrose and at decision height, the runway environment was not in sight. Aware of his fuel state, the poor weather conditions, and surrounding high terrain, the pilot elected to land the airplane in a field. The airplane touched down in mud and nosed over And came to rerst 1/4 mile east-northeast of runway 17.

As of the writing of this report, the air traffic report requested has not been recieved.