The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB ERA11FA185 · Final report

Cessna 310R accident near Smyrna, Tennessee, March 11, 2011

On March 11, 2011 at about 7:43 pm local time, a Cessna 310R, registered N310JR, was substantially damaged in an accident during enroute (climb to cruise) near Smyrna, Tennessee (Smyrna Airport). It was a flight test under general aviation rules (Part 91). 1 person was killed. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The pilot's improper response to a known autopilot pitch divergence anomaly. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's decision to perform a test flight on a system for which he lacked a complete working knowledge.

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

What the record shows

Date
March 11, 2011 · about 7:43 pm local time
Place
Smyrna, Tennessee · Smyrna Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was killed.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Cessna 310R · all 310Rs on the register
Registration
N310JR · no longer on the register · serial 310R1253
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Flight test · general aviation rules (Part 91)

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

Shortly after departure, the airplane entered a rapid, full-power, near-vertical descent from about 2,700 feet above ground level to ground impact. The elevator trim actuator was found in the full tab-up or airplane nose-down position after the accident. The flight was the second flight of the day and was the fourth in a series of maintenance acceptance flights after the installation of a new avionics suite and a new autopilot system. Before the accident flight, all of the features of the autopilot system tested satisfactorily on the ground but did not yet function as designed in flight, as the airplane demonstrated a pitch-porpoise tendency when the altitude hold feature was engaged. According to the technician who performed the installation and troubleshooting work on the airplane, he had accompanied the pilot on the first flight that day and had spoken to an autopilot manufacturing representative upon their return. Another troubleshooting procedure was performed, the technician left for lunch, and the pilot departed alone on the accident flight. When describing a previous test flight, the technician stated that the pilot worked the yoke against the autopilot, and, in response, the autopilot ran the elevator trim to the full nose-down position. The pilot responded by swiping both panel-mounted master switches to the off position (autopilot on/off switch and the trim on/off switch) then attempting to trim the airplane with the electric trim that he had just disabled. According to the technician, the pilot yelled at him to turn the system off, and the technician responded that it was off. He said that the pilot’s actions scared him and demonstrated to him that the pilot really didn't have control of the airplane. He noted that, "After the flight, I told [the pilot] he needed to go back and get in the books and learn to operate the system. He seemed very disoriented with the new technology on this flight and previous flights." Based on the available evidence, it is likely that, after autopilot engagement, the airplane pitched down as a first action of the pitch porpoise, which may have still existed as a discrepancy in the autopilot operation. In response to the downward movement of the airplane, the pilot likely pulled back on the yoke in an effort to arrest the airplane's descent. As a result, the autopilot would have commanded the trim further toward the nose-down position. Such a scenario would require a greater and ever-increasing physical effort by the pilot to overcome the growing aerodynamic force that would result from the nose-down pitch and increasing speed of the airplane. The pilot may have removed one hand from the yoke to again reach for the panel-mounted trim and/or autopilot master switches. With that action, discounting any physical problem, he may have lost his single-handed grip on the control yoke, and the airplane descended in an unrecoverable nose-down attitude.

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. Sys/Comp malf/fail (non-power) during enroute (climb to cruise)
  2. Abrupt maneuver during enroute (climb to cruise)
  3. Loss of control in flight during enroute (climb to cruise) defining event
  4. Collision with terrain or object (not controlled flight into terrain) during uncontrolled descent

The NTSB's findings

  • cause Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action sequence › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Knowledge › Knowledge of equipment › Pilot
  • factor Personnel issues › Experience/knowledge › Knowledge › Knowledge of procedures › Pilot
  • Aircraft › Aircraft systems › Auto flight system › Autopilot system › Malfunction

Pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 13,000 hours in all
  • Medical certificate: Class 2 (with waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: fatal

The aircraft

  • Airframe total time: 5,516 hours
  • Last inspection: annual inspection, June 19, 2010; 76 hours since
  • Maximum gross weight: 5,500 lb
  • Seats: 6
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine 1: Cont Motor IO 520 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total
  • Engine 2: Cont Motor IO 520 SERIES (piston); 0 hours total
  • Operator: Hudson Management Corporation

The flight

  • Departed from: MQY Smyrna TN at 7:40 pm
  • Destination: MQY Smyrna TN
  • Flight plan: none

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 290° at 9 knots
  • Visibility: 10 statute miles
  • Sky: clear
  • Temperature: 57°F (14°C), dew point 27°F (-3°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.18 inHg
  • Observation at 7:56 pm from MQY, 4 miles away

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Flight crew1

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.