SEA05LA011
2004-10-23 · Missoula, Montana, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot's failure to follow published procedures/directives (inducing excessive fuel flow to the engine), and the subsequent loss of engine power for nonmechanical reasons while on final approach. Contributing factors were the utility pole and the ditch.
Factual narrative
On October 23, 2004, at 1105 mountain daylight time, a Cessna T210H, N2240R, was substantially damaged during a forced landing attempt following a loss of engine power near Missoula, Montana. The commercial pilot and his passenger were not injured. The airplane was being operated under Title 14 CFR Part 91. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed for the cross-country personal flight that originated from Philipsburg, Montana, 21 minutes before the accident. A flight plan had not been filed. The pilot said that he was flying to Missoula International Airport, Missoula, Montana, for some avionics maintenance. He was on final for runway 29, and he had been cleared to land. The pilot said that he put the "low" auxiliary fuel pump on, to move the fuel selector to the fullest tank, and then he turned it off. He then noticed that he was below the glide path, and he advanced the throttle for more power. The power did not increase. He attempted an engine restart to no avail. The pilot said that he was "very close to the ground," so he abandoned the restart attempt and performed a forced landing. During the landing roll, the airplane traversed a drainage ditch and struck a transmission pole with its left wing. The nose wheel landing gear and right main landing gear were separated from the aircraft. The outer three feet of the left wing was crushed aft and the entire left wing was bent aft at the wing root. The fuselage was wrinkled and twisted. The owner of the airplane stated that the airplane had been topped-off with fuel approximately 1.0 hour, of engine operation, before the accident. On October 29, 2004, under the auspices of a Federal Aviation Administration Inspector, the engine was test run; it started and ran "without a problem." The airplane manufacturer's Pilot's Operating Handbook gave the following guidance for DESCENT and BEFORE LANDING checklist procedures: DESCENT [checklist] 1. Power-- AS DESIRED. 2. Mixture-- ADJUST for smooth operation (full rich for idle power). BEFORE LANDING [checklist] 1. Fuel Selector-- FULLER TANK. 2. Landing Gear-- EXTEND 3. Landing Gear-- CHECK 4. Mixture-- Rich etc. The airplane manufacturer's Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements manual states: "The auxiliary fuel pump should not be operated during takeoff and landing, since gravity and the engine driven fuel pump will supply adequate fuel flow to the fuel injector unit." "Each time the auxiliary fuel pump switch is turned on or off, the mixture should be readjusted." The pilot said that he was on final, and he had been cleared to land. He said that he put the low auxiliary fuel pump on, to move the fuel selector to the fullest tank, and then he turned it off. He then noticed that he was below the glide path, and he advanced the throttle for more power. The power did not increase. He attempted an engine restart to no avail. The pilot said that he was "very close to the ground," so he abandoned the restart attempt and performed a forced landing. During the landing roll, the airplane traversed a drainage ditch and struck a transmission pole with its left wing. The nose wheel landing gear and right main landing gear were separated from the aircraft. The outer three feet of the left wing was crushed aft and the entire left wing was bent aft at the wing root. The fuselage was wrinkled and twisted. The owner of the airplane stated that the airplane had been topped-off with fuel approximately 1.0 hour, of engine operation, before the accident. On October 29, 2004, under the auspices of a Federal Aviation Administration Inspector, the engine was test run; it started and ran "without a problem." The airplane manufacturer's Pilot's Operating Handbook does not recommend turning on the auxiliary fuel pump for normal fuel selector tank changes. The airplane manufacturer's Pilot Safety and Warning Supplements manual states: "The auxiliary fuel pump should not be operated during takeoff and landing, since gravity and the engine driven fuel pump will supply adequate fuel flow to the fuel injector unit." And, "Each time the auxiliary fuel pump switch is turned on or off, the mixture should be readjusted." Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database (Pre-2008 Archive) Retrieved: 2026-02-12
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2004_SEA05LA011.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (maintenance). All research papers
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2026 · Journal article (IJAAA) From Reactive to Predictive: A hybrid Trust-Mediated Adoption Framework for Data-Driven Maintenance in Distributed-Authority Aviation Environments
Modern aviation maintenance operates within increasingly data-intensive technological environments, yet the operational integration of predictive maintenance into routine decision-making remains incon…
- Semantic Scholar 2026 · Article (Reliability Engineering & System Safety) Understanding human error in military aviation maintenance: The role of Performance shaping factors, cognitive workload and error orientation
- Semantic Scholar 2025 · Article (Applied Sciences) Decision-Making Framework for Aviation Safety in Predictive Maintenance Strategies
The implementation of predictive maintenance (PM) in aviation presents unique challenges due to strict safety requirements, complex operational environments, and regulatory constraints.
- Semantic Scholar 2024 · Article (Defence Science Journal) Modelling of Human Factors in Aviation Maintenance Using HFACS ME Human Factors Analysis and Classification System Maintenance Extension and Bayesian Network
Aircraft maintenance is a complex task involving a skilled human workforce, spare parts, and various other resources. Human factors are an inherent element of the human workforce.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) A New Trajectory in UAV Safety: Leveraging Reinforcement Learning for Distance Maintenance Under Wind Variations
In the field of aviation, safety is a critical cornerstone, and the operation of Unmanned Aerial Vehicle (UAV) systems is deeply connected with this principle.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 2024 · Journal article (JAAER) Low-Resource Automatic Speech Recognition Domain Adaptation – A Case-Study in Aviation Maintenance
With timeliness and efficiency being critical in the aviation maintenance industry, the need has been growing for smart technological solutions that optimize and streamline the different underlying ta…