The NTSB determines the probable cause of this accident  to be pilot loss of control due to spatial disorientation.  Contributing factors were the pilot’s perceived need to fly to  home station and his lack of flight experience in actual IMC. In 2003, during a cross-country flight, the non-instrument-  rated private pilot encountered heavy fog and poor visibility.  The airplane was destroyed after impacting the terrain in a  wildlife refuge. Wildlife refuge personnel stated the weather  was clear on the morning of the accident. However, later that  morning, the weather deteriorated, and the wildlife refuge  personnel stated, “the fog was very heavy and visibility was  very poor.”  An AIRMET, issued and valid for the area, reported the  following: “occasional ceiling below 1,000 feet, visibility  below 3 miles in mist, fog ... Mountains occasionally  obscured clouds, mist, fog ...” On the day of the accident,  the pilot did not file a flight plan or receive a formal weather  briefing from an AFSS.  Examining this accident in more detail offers insight into the  chain of events that led to this accident.  Flying outside the envelope is an unjustified reliance on  the mistaken belief that the airplane’s high performance  capability meets the demands imposed by the pilot’s (usually  overestimated) flying skills. While it can occur in any type  aircraft, advanced avionics aircraft have contributed to an  increase in this type accident. According to the Aircraft Owners and Pilots Association  (AOPA) Air Safety Foundation (ASF), advanced avionics  aircraft are entering GA fleet in large numbers. Advanced  avionics aircraft includes a variety of aircraft from the newly  designed to retrofitted existing aircraft of varying ages. What  they all have in common are complex avionics packages.  While advanced avionics aircraft offer numerous safety and  operational advantages, the FAA has identified a safety issue  that concerns pilots who develop an unwarranted overreliance  on the avionics and the aircraft, believing the equipment will  compensate fully for pilot shortcomings.  Related to overreliance is the role of ADM, which is probably  the most significant factor in the GA accident record of  high-performance aircraft used for cross-country flight. The  FAA advanced avionics aircraft safety study found that poor  decision-making seems to afflict new advanced avionics  aircraft pilots at a rate higher than for GA as a whole. This  is probably due to increased technical capabilities, which  tempt pilots to operate outside of their personal (or even  legal) limits. The availability of global positioning system  (GPS) and moving map systems, coupled with traffic and near  real-time weather information in the flight deck, may lead  pilots to believe they are protected from the dangers inherent  to operating in marginal weather conditions.  The NTSB determines the probable cause(s) of this accident  as follows: The pilot’s inadvertent flight into IMC and failure  to maintain clearance with the terrain. A contributing factor  was the pilot’s failure to obtain an updated preflight weather  briefing. While advanced flight deck technologies may mitigate certain  risks, it is by no means a substitute for sound ADM. The  challenge is this: How should a pilot use this new information  in flight to improve the safety of flight operations? The  answer to this question lies in how well the pilot understands  the information, its limitations, and how best to integrate this  data into the ADM process. The ASF offered the following comment for educational  purposes: the non-instrument-rated pilot in this accident  may or may not have been tempted to continue his flight  when encountering IMC conditions because he had advanced  avionics aircraft equipment on board. Making a risk assessment is important, but in order to make  any assessment the pilot must be able to see and sense  surroundings and process what is seen before performing a  According to AOPA, government information gathering on  accidents does not contain definitive ways to differentiate  between advanced avionics aircraft and non-advanced  avionics aircraft; however, it is known that the aircraft in  the following accident was an advanced avionics aircraft.  3P Model Flying Outside the Envelope 1. On the morning of the flight, the pilot used the Internet  to complete three sessions with the Direct User Access  Terminal Service (DUATS), filing his VFR flight  plan during the third session. He departed in VFR  conditions and requested and received VFR flight  following until he approached a mountain range at  which point he canceled his flight following services  and continued en route without further FAA contact. 2. During the last leg of his flight, the pilot initiated a  right turn of about 120°. This turn, which he initiated  about 3,600 feet MSL, resulted in the aircraft flying  along a narrow valley toward up-sloping terrain. The  pilot continued in that direction for another 2 minutes  before colliding with a number of trees near the top  of a ridge. 5-9