Airbus A321 accident near Atlanta, Georgia, June 23, 2017
On June 23, 2017 at about 5:38 pm local time, a 2016 Airbus A321, registered N315DN, was substantially damaged in an accident during landing (flare/touchdown) near Atlanta, Georgia (Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta I). It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). No one was hurt; 199 people were on board or involved. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
The first officer's improper landing flare, which resulted in a hard, bounced landing, and the flight crew’s improper bounced landing recovery procedures.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 23, 2017 · about 5:38 pm local time
- Place
- Atlanta, Georgia · Hartsfield - Jackson Atlanta I · map
- Type
- Accident
- Injuries
- No one was hurt; 199 people were on board or involved.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Airbus A321 211, built 2016 · all A321s on the register
- Registration
- N315DN · registry record · serial 7436
- Damage
- Substantial damage
- Flight
- Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
The first officer was on her third day of initial operating experience training and was the pilot flying for the flight; the captain, a check airman, was the pilot monitoring. The first officer reported that this was her fourth landing in an A320-series airplane and her first landing in an A321 model. According to the captain and first officer, the flight was cleared for the visual approach, the approach was stable, and wind was out of the southwest at 12 kts with gusts up to 20 kts. The first officer recalled that the captain instructed her to "pull back pull back" before touchdown. Both pilots reported that the landing was “firm.” The first officer stated that after landing, the captain provided feedback that she flared a little low (near 20 ft above ground level [agl] instead of 30 ft agl) and did not provide enough pitch back on the side stick. Both crewmembers reported that the first officer was late to flare on previous landings. A company pilot who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat reported the captain was providing instruction to the first officer during the flight about the nuances of the A321. He stated that the descent and arrival were uneventful up until the flare and that the first officer “never really performed any type of flare maneuver even as the captain repeatedly called for the F/O to perform one." Subsequent preflight inspection of the airplane by the next flight crew revealed an area of abrasion damage to the aft fuselage about 13 ft long by 2 ft wide affecting two skin panels. The fuselage skin was abraded through in several areas with damage to the underlying stringers and frames. Several frames, stringers, and shear clips were also bent and/or fractured.
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
- Abnormal runway contact during landing (flare/touchdown)
- Tailstrike during landing (flare/touchdown) defining event
The NTSB's findings
- cause Personnel issues › Task performance › Use of equip/info › Aircraft control › Copilot
- Personnel issues › Action/decision › Action › Incorrect action sequence › Flight crew
Pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, commercial pilot, flight engineer
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 11,983 hours in all; 5,206 in this make and model; 184 in the last 90 days; 1,795 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: April 23, 2017
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (with waivers/limitations)
- Seat: left
- Injury: no injuries
Co-pilot
- Certificate: airline transport pilot, flight instructor, commercial pilot
- Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instructor: airplane multi-engine; instructor: airplane single-engine; instructor: instrument airplane; instrument: airplane
- Flight time: 5,564 hours in all; 12 in this make and model; 98 in the last 90 days; 0 as pilot in command
- Last flight review: June 17, 2017
- Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
- Seat: rgt
- Injury: no injuries
The aircraft
- Airframe total time: 1,458.2 hours
- Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme, June 22, 2017
- Maximum gross weight: 197,093 lb
- Seats: 201
- Landing gear: retractable
- Engine 1: Cfm Intl CFM56-5B3/3 (turbofan); 1,458 hours total
- Engine 2: Cfm Intl CFM56-5B3/3 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Operator: Delta Air Lines, Inc.
The flight
- Departed from: BOS Boston MA at 3:24 pm
- Destination: ATL Atlanta GA
- Flight plan: IFR
- Runway 26R, 9,000 ft by 150 ft
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: daylight
- Wind: from 190° at 19 knots, gusting 24
- Visibility: 10 statute miles
- Sky: broken clouds at 25,000 ft; a few clouds at 4,000 ft
- Temperature: 84°F (29°C), dew point 70°F (21°C)
- Altimeter: 29.99 inHg
- Observation at 5:52 pm from KATL, 2 miles away
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabi | 4 | |||
| Flight crew | 3 | |||
| Passengers | 192 |
Documents from the investigation the NTSB's docket: the evidence folder behind the report
18 documents, released by the NTSB on July 13, 2021. View them here, or download them; the NTSB redacts some personal details before release, and this site shows the NTSB's own titles rather than its file names.
The same docket at the NTSB · documents without a copy here are fetched from the NTSB when you open them.
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.