The U.S. aircraft register, updated daily
Accidents · NTSB DCA98MA045 · Final report

Douglas DC-9-32 accident near Calhoun, Georgia, May 7, 1998

On May 7, 1998 at about 11:20 pm local time, a Douglas DC-9-32, registered N948VV, was substantially damaged in an accident near Calhoun, Georgia. It was a flight of an unrecorded kind under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). 2 people were seriously injured; 85 others were unhurt. The weather was instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility).

The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged

The failure of the flight crew to maintain adequate separation from hazardous meteorological conditions. Factors contributing to the accident were: (1) the failure of AirTran Airlines to provide adequate crewmember training and guidance regarding hazardous weather encounters; (2) the failure of the flight crew to provide an adequate and timely briefing to the flight attendants regarding turbulence; and (3) the presence of hail and turbulence.

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

What the record shows

Date
May 7, 1998 · about 11:20 pm local time
Place
Calhoun, Georgia
Type
Accident
Injuries
2 people were seriously injured; 85 others were unhurt.
Weather
instrument conditions (cloud, fog or low visibility)
Aircraft
Douglas DC-9-32 · all DC-9-32s on the register
Registration
N948VV · no longer on the register · serial 47559
Damage
Substantial damage
Flight
Flight of an unrecorded kind · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)

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

The properly certificated and qualified flight crew received flight release documents containing weather information from airline dispatch that was incomplete and did not contain pertinent Convective SIGMETs and a tornado watch bulletin. However, the flight crew stated that before departure, they looked at a computerized weather display and observed a line of adverse weather conditions along their intended route of flight. During initial climb after takeoff, the flight crew noticed that they were approaching a line of thunderstorms. The captain initially planned to fly around this line but noticed a 10-mile gap in the line that was depicted on the airplane's on-board weather radar display. The captain decided to fly through the gap, which he could also see when he looked outside of the airplane. The first officer did not challenge his decision. Both flight crewmembers stated that the weather radar was functioning normally. It is unknown exactly what was depicted on the aircraft radar. Radar and weather data indicate that the airplane penetrated an extreme weather echo (VIP level 6) that likely contained a severe thunderstorm, hail, and severe to extreme turbulence. The thunderstorm top was above 45,000 feet. Neither the flight attendants nor the passengers received an adequate or timely briefing to remain seated and to prepare for the possibility of turbulence. The aft flight attendant and a passenger were seriously injured during the turbulence encounter. Hail shattered the front windshield and damaged the pitot system, radome, wings, tail, and engines. The flight crew successfully performed an emergency landing at a nearby airport. The investigation revealed that the captain had been involved in two other air carrier incidents involving adverse weather conditions. It also revealed that the airline lacked adequate training and guidance regarding hazardous weather interpretation and avoidance, as well as adequate procedures to notify flight attendants about potential turbulence. According to FAA guidance, flight crews should avoid intense or extreme level radar echoes by at least 20 miles. This guidance also instructs pilots that such echoes should be separated by at least 40 miles before flight is attempted between the echoes.

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, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 13,500 hours in all; 7,200 in this make and model; 234 in the last 90 days; 104 in the last 30 days
  • Last flight review: March 2, 1998
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (valid medical--w/ waivers/lim.)
  • Seat: left
  • Injury: no injuries

Co-pilot

  • Certificate: airline transport pilot, commercial pilot
  • Ratings: multi-engine land; single-engine land; instrument: airplane
  • Flight time: 5,500 hours in all; 1,500 in this make and model; 181 in the last 90 days; 72 in the last 30 days; 2,000 as pilot in command
  • Last flight review: February 3, 1998
  • Medical certificate: Class 1 (without waivers/limitations)
  • Seat: rgt
  • Injury: no injuries

The aircraft

  • Last inspection: continuous airworthiness programme
  • Maximum gross weight: 109,000 lb
  • Seats: 106
  • Landing gear: retractable
  • Engine: P&W JT8D (turbofan); 0 hours total

The flight

  • Departed from: ATL Atlanta GA at 11:07 pm
  • Destination: MDW Chicago IL
  • Flight plan: IFR
  • Runway 0
  • A second pilot was aboard

Weather at the time

  • Light: daylight
  • Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)

Injuries

FatalSeriousMinorNone
Crew15
Passengers180

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.