WPR14LA059
2013-11-29 · Florence, Oregon, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport 6S2
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The failure of the hydraulic power pack, which prevented the extension of the landing gear and resulted in a partial gear-up landing.
Factual narrative
On November 29, 2013, about 1500 Pacific standard time, a Cessna 210, N6575X, was substantially damaged during landing at the Florence Municipal Airport (6S2), Florence, Oregon. The airplane was registered to a private individual and operated by the pilot under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91. The airline transport pilot and his passenger were not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal flight. The local flight originated from 6S2 about 1400. The pilot reported that prior to the flight, the landing gear actuator was rebuilt and all subsequent ground tests were uneventful. The pilot and passenger proceeded to conduct a local maintenance test flight. During the flight, the landing gear retracted normally, however, when it was extended, the left and right main landing gear would not extend. The pilot stated that the nose wheel landing gear was extended and locked in the down position, and that despite numerous attempts he was unable to raise or lower the landing gear. The pilot initiated a partial gear up landing to Runway 33. During the landing roll the left horizontal stabilizer struck the runway. Postaccident examination of the airplane by the pilot revealed that the left horizontal stabilizer and elevator were bent upward about 10 degrees. The airplane was recovered to a secure location for further examination. Examination of the airframe by a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) inspector was conducted on December 19, 2013, at the owner's hangar. The airplane was placed on jacks and a hydraulic mule was attached to the hydraulic system. Despite multiple attempts, the landing gear would not retract or extend. The hydraulic power pack was subsequently removed and retained for further examination. The hydraulic power pack, part number EA1332-1, serial number 699, was examined by APPH, Wichita, Kansas, under the supervision of an FAA inspector. The examination revealed that all safety wire was intact and no evidence of system contamination was found. The power pack was placed on a test bench and functionally tested using the Cessna 210 Service Manual instructions. During the test, the system would allow the landing gear to be extended, however, would not allow the flaps to be extended or retracted. In addition, the unit did not allow the landing gear to be retracted or build up any pressure with the hand pump. Further examination of the hydraulic pack revealed that the number one thermal relief valve lost pressure after it was relieved. Four poppet assemblies did not retain pressure during the test. In addition, the hand pump assembly spring was not correct for the make/model hydraulic power pack. No additional anomalies were noted during the examination. Review of the maintenance logbook records for the airplane revealed that an entry dated April 8, 2013, at tach time of 1,854.9 hours and airframe total time of 1,885.7 hours, stated in part "….repaired leak in hydraulic power pack." No further entries were noted within the logbook regarding the hydraulic power pack. The pilot reported that the landing gear actuator had been rebuilt and that all ground tests were uneventful. During the takeoff for the maintenance test flight, the landing gear retracted normally. However, when selected to the extend position for landing, the left and right main landing gear would not extend. The nosewheel landing gear did extend and lock in the down position. The pilot's numerous attempts to raise or lower the main landing gear were unsuccessful. The pilot initiated a partial gear-up landing, and, during the landing, the left horizontal stabilizer struck the runway. Multiple attempts to retract or extend the landing gear during postaccident examinations were unsuccessful. During functional tests of the hydraulic power pack, the power pack extended the landing gear; however, it did not extend or retract the flaps. In addition, the power pack did not retract the landing gear or build up any pressure with the hand pump. Further examination of the hydraulic pack revealed that the No. 1 thermal relief valve lost pressure after it was relieved and that four poppet assemblies did not hold pressure. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- C Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Landing gear system-Gear extension and retract sys-Failure - C
- C Aircraft-Aircraft systems-Hydraulic power system-Pressure regulator, main-Failure - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2013_WPR14LA059.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
- NASA NTRS 2020 · Technical Memorandum (TM) Evaluation Issues for a Flight Deck Interface; CAST SE-210 Output 2: Report 4 of 6
This report is part of a series of reports that addresses flight deck design and evaluation, written as a response to loss of control accidents.
- 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.