Page:NTSB Report, Paul Kelly Flying Service crash.pdf/17

Rh others. In any event, he was obviously committed to the complex situation requiring visual flight to avoid terrain and other aircraft, and he was con- fronted by circumstances which required instrument reference for proper attitude interpretation. Considering the copilot's inexperience and the adverse conditions for the high speed, low level flight, it is doubtful if the pilot relied on him for any appreciable assistance. Finally, it is significant to note that the pilot was completing his second consecutive day of extensive flight operations, with minimal rest intervening, and any fatigue experienced would have increased his susceptibility to disorientation. 2.2 Conclusions (a) Findings 1. The aircraft was airworthy and the pilots properly certificated. 2. There was no mechanical failure of the aircraft, its systems powerplants, or components. 3. The flight was initiated at night in weather which was above the minimum conditions for VFR operations, but there was an overcast at 5,000 feet, with rainshowers and lower clouds obscuring the higher surrounding terrain. 4. The flight made a normal climbout and remained below the clouds. 5. There were other aircraft flying in the area awaiting IFR clearances. 6. The pilot was confronted with conditions requiring the division of his attention between instrument reference for proper atti- tude information-and visual reference for terrain and aircraft avoidance.