The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB CEN11IA341 · Final report

Beech 1900D incident near Denver, Colorado, May 17, 2011

On May 17, 2011 at about 12:45 pm local time, a Beech 1900D, registered N218YV, suffered minor damage in an incident during landing (landing roll) near Denver, Colorado (Denver airport). It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). No one was hurt; 11 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The fatigue failure of the nose landing gear (NLG) end cap, which resulted in insufficient hydraulic pressure to secure the left main landing gear into the down and locked position. Contributing to the fatigue failure was the NLG end cap’s non-optimum grain direction and the inadequate inspection procedure performed during overhaul.

Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.

What the record shows

Date
May 17, 2011 · about 12:45 pm local time
Place
Denver, Colorado · Denver · map
Type
Incident
Injuries
No one was hurt; 11 people were on board or involved.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Beech 1900D · all 1900Ds on the register
Registration
N218YV · no longer on the register · serial UE-218
Damage
Minor damage
Flight
Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)

The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record

While on approach to landing, the first officer (the pilot flying) called for the landing gear to be extended. The captain placed the gear handle in the down position and waited for the three landing gear down-and-locked annunciator lights to illuminate. Although the “NOSE” and “RH” annunciators illuminated fully, only the “L” side of the “LH” annunciator for the left main landing gear (LMLG) appeared to be illuminated (each annunciator has two light bulbs). During the landing roll, the airplane began to wobble, and the LMLG collapsed. An examination of the airplane revealed that the nose landing gear (NLG) actuator end cap, which was found on the runway, failed due to fatigue from multiple origins that propagated from the inside diameter toward the exterior of the cap. The end cap failure, which likely occurred once the NLG reached its down and locked position, allowed most of the hydraulic fluid to be blown out of the NLG actuator, resulting in a decrease in hydraulic system pressure before the LMLG could reach the full down-and-locked position (the LMLG is the last in the system to receive a pressure pulse). No premishap mechanical deficiencies were noted with the LMLG system that would have precluded it from operating normally if sufficient hydraulic pressure had been available. However, because the loss of hydraulic pressure also disabled the manual landing gear extension system, the Quick Reference Handbook (QRH) procedure for the flight crew to manually extend the gear would have been ineffective in securing the LMLG. The investigation identified safety issues related to the failure mode and inspection procedure for the NLG actuator end cap. Metallurgical examination of the NLG end cap revealed that the fractured NLG end cap’s grain was not in the optimum longitudinal direction. (Grain direction in the metal’s microstructure affects its tensile properties and resistance to fatigue stresses.) The NLG end cap was manufactured before the specifications were revised to indicate a longitudinal grain direction for the part. Also, evidence indicates that the fatigue crack was likely present when the end cap was overhauled in 2008 and during a routine inspection of the airplane in 2010; however, the dye penetrant inspection performed during the overhaul did not detect the crack, which would not have been detectable during the visual inspection of the airplane (because the crack had not propagated to the outside of the end cap). As a result of this investigation, the airplane’s maintenance manual was changed to recommend ultrasonic inspections and overhauls for the NLG end cap at specified cycles. Another safety issue was identified regarding the illuminated appearance of the LH annunciator in the cockpit. According to the system design, when the LMLG is not down and locked, the indication circuit is not complete, and the LH annunciator lights will not be illuminated in the cockpit. However, examination of the incident airplane revealed that an incorrect lamp module, which did not have a light dam, was installed in the center position. As a result, light from the illuminated "R" (in the adjacent annunciator) was able to bleed over and give the appearance that the "L" was also illuminated, providing the flight crew with an erroneous indication that the LMLG was down and locked. The investigation examined other factors that influenced the flight crew’s belief that the LMLG was safe and the captain’s decision to continue the approach. The captain noted that, after he placed the gear handle down, the landing gear in-transit light stayed on and that the gear motor continued to run for about 16 seconds before the gear-motor relay circuit breaker popped, but he stated that he was confident that the illuminated “L” indicated that the LMLG was down and locked. The captain also noted that the gear unsafe warning horn sounded just before touchdown, but he stated that he was not concerned about the horn and elected not to go-around and run the QRH checklists because he had confirmed several times that the gear annunciator lights were illuminated, and he had visually confirmed that the landing gear appeared to be down and locked. Both crewmembers stated that their training told them that if at least one light was illuminated for each annunciator, the landing gear was safe. The captain reported that, about 3 weeks before the incident, he had experienced erroneous gear in-transit light and warning horn indications in another airplane that had resulted from a wiring problem. The QRH procedure, LANDING GEAR MANUAL EXTENSION, states that the failure of the landing gear to fully extend may be indicated by several things, including the red in-transit light and the warning horn; however, it also states: “Because there are two redundant gear-down annunciators for each gear leg, failure of only one green gear-down annunciator to illuminate does not indicate that the gear is unsafe.” The operator’s director of flight standards stated that the company does not train for situations that would involve three illuminated gear down-and-locked lights in conjunction with other gear warnings. As a result of this incident, the operator revised its Flight Standards Manual and training modules.

The complete narrative as the NTSB published it. The NTSB's docket holds the report as a PDF and any photographs, statements and other documents from the investigation.

The factual record from the NTSB's investigation tables, in plain English

What happened, in order

  1. Landing gear collapse during landing (landing roll) defining event

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Landing gear actuator › Failure
  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Gear position and warning › Not specified
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Landing gear actuator › Design
  • factor Aircraft › Aircraft handling/service › Maintenance/inspections › (general) › Inadequate inspection

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 3,250 hours in all; 2,800 in this make and model; 190 in the last 90 days; 80 in the last 30 days; 2,000 as pilot in command; 100 on instruments
  • Last flight review: January 15, 2011
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

Co-pilot

  • Certificate: flight instructor, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane single-engine; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 950 hours in all; 85 in this make and model; 85 in the last 90 days; 70 in the last 30 days; 810 as pilot in command; 400 on instruments
  • Last flight review: March 28, 2011
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 29,583 hours
  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, May 11, 2011; 21 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 17,120 lb
  • Seats: 21
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: P&W Canada PT6A-6 SERIES (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Engine 2: P&W Canada PT6A-6 SERIES (turboprop); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Great Lakes Aviation

The flight

  • Departed from: PUB Pueblo CO at 12:07 pm
  • Destination: DEN Denver CO
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • Runway 35L, 12,000 ft by 150 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 260° at 7 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: broken clouds at 20,000 ft; a few clouds at 14,000 ft
  • Temperature: 45°F (7°C), dew point 39°F (4°C)
  • Altimeter: 29.70 inHg
  • Observation at 12:41 pm from DEN

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew2
Passengers9

Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report

The docket, the folder of records gathered during an investigation (maintenance records, photographs, witness statements, examinations), has not been read from the NTSB for this case yet; the list appears here once it has. Open the docket at the NTSB.

Everything on this page comes from the NTSB's public records. The narrative, probable cause and findings are the NTSB's own words; the coded tables behind the report are written out in plain English, with pilots' ages, home towns and medical details left out. The documents and photographs are the NTSB's docket, shown as the NTSB released them. This site's own text never names anyone involved. A preliminary report can change; the final report usually follows one to two years later, and the page is refreshed when it does.