The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB NYC06FA128 · Final report

Embraer EMB-170 accident near Dulles, Virginia, May 31, 2006

On May 31, 2006, a Embraer EMB-170, registered N651RW, was substantially damaged in an accident near Dulles, Virginia (Dulles International Airport). It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). 1 person was seriously injured; 60 others were unhurt. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

Improper servicing of the nose landing gear strut and the operator's inadequate maintenance procedure. A factor was the inadequate checklist provided to the flight crew by the operator.

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

What the record shows

Date
May 31, 2006
Place
Dulles, Virginia · Dulles International Airport · map
Type
Accident
Injuries
1 person was seriously injured; 60 others were unhurt.
Weather
visual conditions (good weather)
Aircraft
Embraer EMB-170
Registration
N651RW · no longer on the register · serial 17000072
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)

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

After departure, the first officer was unable to raise the landing gear handle to retract the landing gear. The flight crew discussed the situation and did not believe they had a landing gear malfunction, as they did not receive an Engine Indicating and Crew Alerting System (EICAS) message. They decided to press the "Downlock Release" button to raise the gear, the landing gear subsequently retracted, and the flight continued to the destination airport area uneventfully. As the flight crew attempted to extend the landing gear for landing, the nose landing gear (NLG) did not extend. They prepared for an emergency landing, and touched down "normally" on the main landing gear. The airplane came to rest on the runway, and during the evacuation, one passenger was seriously injured. Three days prior to the accident, the airplane had its NLG strut serviced as part of its approved maintenance program. The following day, a pilot reported that the NLG was "low" and "sounded like it was bottoming out." The NLG strut was checked by maintenance personnel, and found to be within limits. Additionally, during the day prior to the accident, a pilot reported that the landing gear did not retract after takeoff. Maintenance personnel believed the problem to be the landing gear control lever, and replaced it. Examination of the NLG, after the accident, revealed the NLG fluid volume was approximately two-fifths of what a normally serviced NLG should contain. Disassembly of the NLG revealed evidence of "bottoming," or under-service operation. A review of the operator's maintenance job card titled "Servicing NLG Shock Strut," revealed discrepancies when compared to the manufacturers Aircraft Maintenance Manual (AMM). The operator's maintenance job card did not contain a procedure to fill the shock strut with the final volume of hydraulic fluid. The accident airplane was equipped with Proximity Sensor Electronics Modules (PSEMs), which relayed the position of the landing gear to the EICAS. The model of PSEM, which was installed on the airplane, was not the most current model, and by design, would not generate an EICAS message ("LG WOW SYS FAIL") if the nose gear did not retract or extend. Examination of the operator's "Gear Lever Cannot Be Moved Up" checklist revealed discrepancies when compared to the airplane manufacturer's checklist. The operator's checklist began with the condition: "LG WOW SYS FAIL message displayed," and the manufacturer's checklist did not. Since the crew did not receive a "LG WOW SYS FAIL" message, they did not have clear written guidance on what action to take when the landing gear handle could not be moved to the retracted position.

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

Pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 6,600 hours in all; 700 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: February 1, 2006
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

Co-pilot

  • Certificate: commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 2,800 hours in all; 1,000 in this make and model
  • Last flight review: September 1, 2005
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, May 1, 2006
  • Maximum gross weight: 79,344 lb
  • Seats: 74
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine: General Electric CF34-8E (turbofan); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: IAH Houston TX at 9:20 pm
  • Destination: IAD Dulles VA
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • Runway 19L, 11,500 ft by 150 ft
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Wind: from 150° at 3 knots
  • Visibility: 9 statute miles
  • Sky: scat at 25,000 ft
  • Temperature: 82°F (28°C), dew point 68°F (20°C)
  • Altimeter: 30.05 inHg

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Crew4
Passengers156

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.