NTSB CAROL · Event
Event DCA11FA035
Registry · N173UP
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
AIRBUS A300 F4-622R
Year of manufacture
2006 · 5 years old at event
TCDS
A35EU · AIRBUS SAS
Engine
P & W PW4158
Seats / Engines
380 seats · 2 engines
Last airworthiness date
20060602
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A12622
Registrant of record
UNITED PARCEL SERVICE CO
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The captain's failure to control the airplane pitch-up induced by ground spoiler deployment during the go-around.
Factual narrative
On March 22, 2011, about 2038 mountain daylight time, UPS flight 797, an Airbus A-300F, N173UP, experienced a tail strike during a go-around at Albuquerque International Sunport (ABQ), Albuquerque, New Mexico. The airplane received substantial damage and the flight crew was not injured. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a domestic cargo flight from El Paso International Airport (ELP), El Paso, Texas. According to the flight crew and recorder data, the captain was the pilot flying and the takeoff, climb and cruise portion of the flight was uneventful., Prior to landing, the captain conducted the approach briefing, indicating that they would conduct a visual approach to runway 26, the gusty winds required a wind additive to the approach speed and would go-around if the approach was not stabilized. On final approach, the local controller cleared the flight to land and reported the winds were 310 degrees at 16 knots. The flight crew stated that at 1000 feet AGL the landing checklist was complete, the airplane was fully configured for landing and the approach speed was set to 132 knots (Vref + 5). Recorder data indicated that during the final approach, the autothrottle was disconnected about 800 feet above the ground and the airspeed decreased to as low as 129 knots but did not go below Vref (127 knots). The first officer (FO) stated that he called out the low airspeed and adjusted the target airspeed from 132 to 134 knots. The captain increased power during the approach but the airspeed remained slightly below Vapp until landing. Pitch attitude on final approach was stable at about 5 to 6 degrees nose up. The pitch attitude at touchdown was about 7 degrees and the airplane touched down first on the right main landing gear (MLG) and then on the left MLG. The flight crew stated that they felt that the airplane bounced and both called for a go around simultaneously. About one second after the initial touchdown, the ground spoilers began to deploy, followed by an increase in pitch in the next two seconds from 4.2 degrees to 12.7 degrees. Thrust levers advanced to near maximum thrust about one second after the left MLG touched down and as the ground spoilers were in transit. Pitch attitude continued to increase to more than 14 degrees while the airplane was still on the ground. Neither flight crewmember was aware of a tail strike until the captain discovered damage to the airplane during the post flight inspection.. The tail strike resulted in aft fuselage skin cracks and numerous sheared rivets, internal structural damage to the frames, a cracked support bracket, buckled floor beam, buckled main cargo deck floor panels, and buckled stringers. The captain was the pilot flying and properly briefed the approach and completed the appropriate checklists before landing. The reported winds at the time of landing was 320 degrees at 16 knots that would result in about a 13-knot crosswind and the flight crew properly computed the approach speed of 132 knots. According to UPS stabilized approach criteria, airspeed should remain within +10 and -5 knots of the computed final approach speed. Below 1,000 feet above the ground, the indicated airspeed decreased to as low as 129 knots, but did not go below Vref (127 knots). The first officer properly called out the low airspeed and adjusted the target airspeed. Throughout the final approach, the pitch attitude was stable at about 5 to 6 degrees nose up. Although the airspeed was slightly slow during the last 1,000 feet of the approach, the airplane remained within UPS stabilized approach criteria. The airplane first touched down on the right main landing gear (MLG) at a pitch attitude of 6.7 degrees, followed shortly thereafter by touchdown on the left MLG. The pitch attitude at touchdown was slightly less than the 7-8 degrees described as typical in the UPS Pilot Training Guide (PTG). Although the radio altitude did not show a bounce, it is likely that the aircraft struts rebounded after the initial touchdown giving the flight crew a sensation of a bounce. The UPS PTG stated under "Bounce Recovery" that to recover from a light bounce (5 feet or less), continue the landing, use power as required to soften the second touchdown, maintain or regain a normal landing attitude, and be aware of increased landing distance. It stated with emphasis not to increase pitch attitude as this could cause a tailstrike. The airplane touched down in the normal touchdown zone and the pitch attitude was well below that required for a tailstrike of 11.2 degrees. UPS had a "No Fault Go-Around" policy, which stated that the decision to go around should not involve pride, pressure, hesitation, jeopardy or fault, and that crews should discuss and prepare for a go-around before each approach. The UPS PTG also stated that "at any time during an approach if the crew feels conditions are not satisfactory, the approach should not be continued." Although the captain stated that his decision to go around was prompted by a wind gust that lifted the right wing, it is more likely that the hard touchdown caused the struts to rebound and prompted the go around. Even though the airplane did not bounce into the air as they thought, the crews' actions were within the company policy. Approximately one second after the initial touchdown, the ground spoilers began to deploy, followed by an increase in pitch in the next two seconds from 4.2 degrees to 12.7 degrees. As the ground spoilers reached their maximum, the thrust levers were advanced to commence the go around and the tailstrike occurred as the pitch attitude passed 11.2 degrees while the airplane was still on the ground. Pitch attitude continued to increase to more than 14 degrees while the aircraft was still on the ground. The A300 Airplane Operating Manual (AOM) stated that the airplane has a slight pitch up tendency at touchdown as the ground spoilers extended, and that the flight crew must be prepared for this pitch-up tendency. It is likely that the crew did not anticipate the spoiler-induced pitch-up after touchdown, which resulted in the tailstrike. The AOM also stated that during a manual go-around, the application of Takeoff Go Around (TOGA) thrust can result in a rapid pitch-up to an excessive nose high attitude. From 6 to 11 seconds after initial touchdown, the engines accelerated to near full power, accompanied by a further increase in pitch from 14.1 degrees to 17.2 degrees while the airplane remained below 50 feet radar altitude. While the desired manual go-around pitch attitude was 17.5 degrees, it is implicit that the 11.2 degree ground contact pitch attitude limit must be respected while on or in close proximity to the ground. The degree to which thrust-induced pitch-up exacerbated the tailstrike cannot be determined. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
Hierarchical cause / factor breakdown from the FAA bulk avdata database. Each finding tagged C (Cause) or F (Factor).
- C Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2011_DCA11FA035.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Beyond the agency record
Search this event elsewhere.
Pre-filled searches into the sources where news + community discussion of aviation events lives. External sources are reported, not agency. Treat them as signal that something happened, not as fact about what happened.
Entity-clustered aviation events in the press — last 24 hr + 30-day archive.
Official agency record + docket.
Investigative docket: factual reports, photos, transcripts.
Long-running aviation incident database (Flight Safety Foundation).
Community NTSB synthesis blog — often has photos and witness reports.
Gold-standard aviation incident blog.
Aviation industry news search.
GA pilot forum — informed but rumor-prone.
GA pilot subreddit search.
Tail-number page — flight history (free tier limited).
AOPA Air Safety Institute search.
Mainstream press coverage. Recent events only.
Privacy-preserving news search.
External links open in a new tab. We don't ingest their content; we deep-link search queries.
Related research
What the literature says.
Academic papers and agency reports matching this event's aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- NASA NTRS 2025 · Conference Paper
A Training Study to Improve Monitoring During A Go-Around
As part of an FAA program to improve go-around (GA) safety, we were asked to determine if we could improve the performance of the Pilot Monitoring (PM) during a GA maneuver.
- Flight Safety Foundation 2024 · FSF / AeroSafety World
Go-Around Safety Forum Findings
Foundation Go-Around Safety Forum technical findings — examines why pilots fail to execute go-arounds when criteria are met (stabilized approach gate not met, energy state out of envelope, traffic con…
- Semantic Scholar 2022 · Article (Journal of Safety Research)
Go-around accidents and general aviation safety.
INTRODUCTION Changes in General Aviation (GA) accident rates, specifically in the go-around phase, are examined by comparing the number of accidents, the proportion of fatal accidents, and the proport…
- Semantic Scholar 2021 · Article (Aerospace)
Classification and Analysis of Go-Arounds in Commercial Aviation Using ADS-B Data
Go-arounds are a necessary aspect of commercial aviation and are conducted after a landing attempt has been aborted. It is necessary to conduct go-arounds in the safest possible manner, as go-arounds …
- NASA NTRS 2021 · Accepted Manuscript (Version with final changes)
Go-Around Criteria Refinement for Transport Category Aircraft
Presently, airline pilots are trained to go around if, when lower than 500 ft above the ground, they are outside of a handful of parameters such as airspeed, position, and rate of descent.
- NASA NTRS 2019 · Conference Paper
Validation of Proposed Go-Around Criteria Under Various Environmental Conditions
This paper evaluates the effects of environmental conditions on touchdown performance under varying approach states and validates proposed go-around criteria developed using data from a previously con…
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗