Cessna 210N accident near Cincinnati, Ohio, March 20, 2008
On March 20, 2008 at about 6:30 pm local time, a Cessna 210N, registered N4943U, was substantially damaged in an accident during initial climb near Cincinnati, Ohio (Cincinnati-Blue Ash airport). It was a personal flight under general aviation rules (Part 91). No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The pilot's decision to operate the airplane with a "dead" battery contrary to guidance provided by the Pilot's Operating Handbook. An additional cause was the pilot's failure to verify that the landing gear was fully down and locked prior to landing. Contributing factors were the pilot's failure to properly service the battery prior to the flight and the subsequent loss of all electrical power, which rendered that normal gear extension system inoperative.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- March 20, 2008 · about 6:30 pm local time
- Place
- Cincinnati, Ohio · Cincinnati-Blue Ash · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 1 person was on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Cessna 210N · all 210Ns on the register
- Registration
- N4943U · no longer on the register · serial 21064842
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Personal flight · general aviation rules (Part 91)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The pilot had not flown the airplane over the winter and the battery had lost its charge. The engine was started with the assistance of ground power. After engine start-up, the alternator output indicated 29 volts, battery voltage indicated zero, and the ammeter showed that the battery was charging.The pilot reported that upon raising the landing gear and flaps after liftoff, "immediately all electrical power went out." The pilot elected to remain in the traffic pattern and return for an immediate landing. He lowered the landing gear handle. However, due to what he perceived as an urgent situation and the attention required by other traffic in the vicinity, he did not use the emergency gear extension procedure to insure that the landing gear was fully down and locked. Upon landing, the main landing gear collapsed and the airplane departed the left side of the runway. The left horizontal stabilizer sustained skin and sub-structure damage. A post accident inspection revealed that the battery had little or no electrolyte in it. Battery output was 8.3 volts, with no indication of electrical current. The alternators and voltage regulators were tested. No anomalies with the function of the alternators or regulators were observed. The airplane was equipped with a 28-volt dual-alternator electrical system. The Pilot's Operating Handbook (POH) stated that "use of the ground service plug receptacle for starting an airplane with a 'dead' battery or charging a 'dead' battery in the airplane is not recommended." It added that a "failure to observe this precaution could result in loss of electrical power during flight." Landing gear extension and retraction is controlled by an electric motor, which provided hydraulic pressure to actuate the gear. Loss of electrical power prevented operation of the motor and required that the landing gear be extended manually. The pilot commented that the accident may have been prevented by inspecting the battery fluid level prior to the flight because the airplane had been tied down all winter.
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
- Electrical system malf/failure during initial climb defining event
- Landing gear collapse during landing
- Runway excursion during landing
The NTSB's findings
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Electrical power system › (general) › Failure
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Electrical power system › Battery/charger › Incorrect service/maintenance
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Landing gear system › Gear extension and retract sys › Inoperative
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Use of policy/procedure › Pilot
- cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action selection › Pilot
Pilot
- Certificate: private
- Ratings: single-engine land
- Flight time: 1,353 hours in all; 214 in this make and model; 0 in the last 90 days; 0 in the last 30 days
- Last flight review: June 1, 2006
- Medical certificate: Class 3 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 3,055 hours
- Last inspection: annual inspection, July 1, 2007
- Maximum gross weight: 3,800 lb
- Seats: 6
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine: Continental IO-520-L13 (piston); 0 hours total
The flight
- Departed from: ISZ Cincinnati OH at 6:30 pm
- Flight plan: none
- Runway 24, 3,499 ft by 75 ft
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 280° at 13 knots, gusting 17
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: clear
- Temperature: 52°F (11°C), dew point 27°F (-3°C)
- Altimeter: 30.21 inHg
- Observation at 6:53 pm from LUK, 9 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Flight crew | 1 |
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.