Flight Preparation
The pilot obtained multiple preflight weather briefings, which led to a delay in the flight's departure until the afternoon.
Approach and Weather Encounter
After departure and while near the intended destination, air traffic controllers twice advised the pilot of adverse weather, including heavy to extreme precipitation along the intended final approach. The pilot, operating in visual meteorological conditions, requested an RNAV approach to the destination airport. While flying toward the final approach fix at a low thrust setting, the autopilot attempted to maintain 2,000 feet while pitching up and slowing to about 100 knots, triggering an airspeed aural warning. The pilot applied partial thrust. While in instrument meteorological conditions, the flight encountered extreme precipitation and turbulence associated with a previously reported thunderstorm.
Autopilot and Controls
The pilot turned off the autopilot. The airplane then climbed at a rate well beyond its performance capability, likely caused by updrafts from the mature thunderstorm and application of takeoff thrust. The High Electronic Stability & Protection (ESP) engaged, pitching the airplane nose-down, coupled with the pilot pushing the control stick forward. The airplane began descending, then pitched up and climbed again.
Descent and Parachute Activation
The pilot activated the Cirrus Airframe Parachute System (CAPS). The airplane descended under canopy into a marsh, but wind inflated the CAPS canopy, dragging the airplane a short distance.
Post-Accident Examination
Post-accident examination of the recovered airplane revealed substantial damage to the front pressure bulkhead and to both sides of the fuselage immediately behind the front pressure bulkhead. There was no evidence of preimpact failure or malfunction of the flight controls for roll, pitch, or yaw. Data downloaded from the Recoverable Data Module (RDM) revealed no faults with the autopilot or stability protection systems until the CAPS was activated, when those recorded faults would have been expected. No discrepancies were found with the engine. Although the pilot perceived a malfunction of the autopilot at several times during the final portion of the flight, the perceived discrepancies were likely normal system responses based on autopilot mode changes.