Boeing 757-232 incident near Atlanta, Georgia, June 21, 2011
On June 21, 2011 at about 4:07 am local time, a Boeing 757-232, registered N6714Q, was involved in an incident during takeoff near Atlanta, Georgia. It was flown under scheduled airline rules (Part 121). 3 people had minor injuries; 175 others were unhurt. The weather was visual conditions (good weather).
The NTSB's probable cause their words, unchanged
Fuel leaking from the fuel flow transmitter that ignited on contact with the engine’s hot cases which resulted in an engine undercowl fire. The fuel leak resulted from the fuel flow transmitter end housing backing off from the main housing, creating a gap that allowed high pressure fuel to escape. Under certain assembly variances and operational load and temperature variations, the end housing joint may not be able to maintain the preload without eventually yielding, which results in the loosening of the joint and the resultant gap.
Source: NTSB aviation accident database, copy made October 5, 2026. Docket and reports at the NTSB.
What the record shows
- Date
- June 21, 2011 · about 4:07 am local time
- Place
- Atlanta, Georgia · map
- Type
- Incident
- Injuries
- 3 people had minor injuries; 175 others were unhurt.
- Weather
- visual conditions (good weather)
- Aircraft
- Boeing 757-232 · all 757-232s on the register
- Registration
- N6714Q · registry record · serial 30485
- Damage
- Not recorded
- Flight
- Flight · scheduled airline rules (Part 121)
The NTSB's narrative final · quoted from the NTSB record
On June 21, 2011, about 0007 eastern daylight time, a Boeing B-757-232, N6714Q, powered by two Pratt & Whitney (P&W) PW2037 turbofan engines, experienced a left engine (No. 1) fire while taking off from Atlanta’s Hartsfield International Airport (ATL), Atlanta, Georgia. The Captain declared an emergency, shutdown the No. 1 engine, and a turnback to ATL was initiated. The airplane made a successful overweight, single-engine landing, and an emergency evacuation was conducted on the right side of the airplane onto the runway. Of the 172 passengers and 6 crewmembers on board the flight, 3 passengers received minor injuries associated with the slide evacuation. The airplane was operated by Delta Airlines as a 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 domestic passenger flight from ATL to Los Angeles International Airport, Los Angeles, California. Night visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time, and an instrument flight rules flight plan was filed. Examination of the engine found extensive fire damage and thermal distress in the fan and core compartments with the vast majority of the thermal distress and the most extensive fire damage located in the fan compartment between and including the intermediate case and the turbine exhaust case. The end housing of the fuel flow transmitter (FFT) was found backed-off from the main housing, which created a gap of about 0.3 inch at the bottom of the unit; correspondingly the FFT-to-fuel distribution valve (FFT-to-FDV) fuel line was found plastically deformed. An installation fit check coupled a deflection analysis of the FFT-to-FDV fuel line revealed that the deformation of the fuel tube was as a result of the FFT end housing separation; it did not cause the gap. Metallurgical analysis of the FFT hardware did not find any material defects or anomalies. Torque tension tests and a finite element analysis of the loads applied to the FFT revealed that under certain assembly variances and operational load and temperature variations, the load capability of the end housing-to-main housing bolted joint was marginal or less than marginal. With reduced load capability, the main housing threads would not be able to maintain the preload without eventually yielding, which would result in lessening of the preload and loosening of the joint. A review of the FFT component maintenance manual (CMM) found several areas where improvements could be made to ensure a more consistent FFT assembly practice and proposed changes have been initiated to the CMM.
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
- Powerplant sys/comp malf/fail during takeoff defining event
- Fire/smoke (non-impact) during takeoff
The NTSB's findings
- cause Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine (turbine/turboprop) › Accessory drives › Capability exceeded
- factor Aircraft › Aircraft power plant › Engine (turbine/turboprop) › Accessory drives › Related maintenance info
- factor Organizational issues › Development › Design › Design of document/info › Manufacturer
The aircraft
- Seats: 178
- Landing gear: fixed
- Engine 1: P & W PW2037 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Engine 2: P & W PW2037 (turbofan); 0 hours total
- Operator: Delta Air Lines INC
The flight
- Departed from: Atlanta GA
- Destination: LAX Los Angeles CA
- Flight plan: IFR
- A second pilot was aboard
Weather at the time
- Light: night
- Temperature: 0°F (-18°C), dew point 0°F (-18°C)
Injuries
| Fatal | Serious | Minor | None | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cabi | 4 | |||
| Flight crew | 2 | |||
| Passengers | 3 | 169 |
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.
Other NTSB records under N6714Q the same tail number, which may have belonged to a different aircraft at the time
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.