NTSB CAROL · Event
Event DCA13FA071
Registry · N560UW
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
AIRBUS A321-231
Year of manufacture
2012 · 1 years old at event
TCDS
A28NM · AIRBUS SAS
Engine
IAE V2533-A5
Seats / Engines
379 seats · 2 engines
Last airworthiness date
20120922
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A728C1
Registrant of record
AMERICAN AIRLINES INC
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
the captain's improper recovery from a bounced landing which resulted in a tailstrike.
Factual narrative
On April 5, 2013, about 1251 pacific daylight time, U. S Airways flight 1733, an Airbus 321-231, N560UW, experienced a tail strike while landing on runway 25L at McCarran International Airport (LAS), Las Vegas, Nevada. The airplane incurred substantial damage and there were no injuries to the 187 passengers and 6 crew members on board. The scheduled domestic passenger flight was operating under the provisions of 14 CFR Part 121and originated from Charlotte/Douglas International Airport (CLT), Charlotte, North Carolina. The captain was the pilot flying and the first officer was the pilot monitoring. According to flight crew statements, the takeoff, climb, cruise and descent were uneventful. Prior to descent, the captain briefed a visual approach to runway 25L at LAS, which would be backed up by the instrument landing system (ILS). He also included a brief of the A321's 7.5 degree pitch limit. The crew reported that visual meteorological conditions with light and variable winds were initially reported at LAS, however, the winds (VMC) became gusty around the time of the accident. The captain stated that, once he turned off the autopilot while on the approach to runway 25L, he thought "the winds seemed a little stronger…" than what was reported, and it felt "a little squirrelly." According to the flight crew, the approach was stabilized, on speed, and on glide path. Flaps were selected FULL and autobrakes were selected LOW. The approach speed was 158 knots. When the captain began to initiate the flare within about 20 feet above the ground and pitched up "just a tad" for the flare, but stated he did not feel any pitch response, so he brought the nose up a little more to arrest the descent. Upon initial touchdown, he estimated that they bounced about 5-10 feet back into the air and the airplane struck its tail on the second touchdown. During post flight inspection, the flight crew confirmed damage to the tail. During post accident interviews, the captain told investigators that he would typically bring the thrust to idle when he heard the "Retard" auto callout. For this landing, he said he did not see a speed buffer like normal on the speed tape, so he held the thrust in a little longer. He said that he started to initiate the flare within about 20 feet above the ground and pitched up "just a tad" for the flare, but did not feel any pitch, so he brought it up a little more to arrest the descent and still did not feel any pitch change.
DAMAGE TO AIRPLANE
The airplane incurred substantial damage to the underbelly and aft bulkhead area. The skin was abraded through its thickness in several areas of the pressure vessel. Skin was eroded in sections 17 & 18; Frames and cargo floor support structure at Frames 63 and 64 were bent; Frame 64 cargo floor support cross brace had severed; Frame clips at Frame 65 were severed as well as the tab between clip and Stringer 44; Frame clips at Frames 62, 63, 66, and 67 were damaged; Frames 64-67, the rivets that connect the frame clip to the stringer had sheared, the butt splice strap at Frame 64 was damaged; stringers 43L, 44, and 43R had damage at Frame 65; the vertical strut at Frame 65 between cargo floor structure and passenger floor beam had a bent attached structure; Floor beam at Frame 65 had twisted; the cargo floor support structure at Frames 63 and 64 had deformed; the internal doubler around potable water service panel in proximity to Frame 65 was damaged.
PERSONNEL INFORMATION
At the time of the accident, the captain held an Airline Transport Pilot (ATP) certificate, issued on January 13, 2008, with airplane Multi-Engine Land and Sea ratings. He held type ratings in CE-500, DC-9, A-320, B-737, ERJ-170, and ERJ-190, as well as a Flight Engineer certificate issued March 16, 1983. He had accumulated 14,119 flight hours of which 3,000 was as pilot in command and 3,543 hours in the A319/320/321. He held a FAA First Class Medical Certificate, issued November 19, 2012, with no limitations. The first officer held an ATP certificate, issued August 24, 2008, with airplane Multi-Engine Land rating. He held type ratings in DHC-8, BE-400, MU-300, B-757 B-767, and A-320. He had accumulated over 14,000 hours of total flight experience, of which 1,700 were in A319/320/321. He held a First Class Medical Certificate, issued October 5, 2012, with no limitations.
METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION
Five minutes after the event, the KLAS METAR, showed that the winds were from 040 degrees at 11 knots, gusting to 17 knot. The visibility was 10 statute miles, with few clouds at 12,000 feet, and a scattered layer at 25,000 feet. The altimeter measured 29.85 in Hg. One hour before they were stated as variable at 4 knots.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION
The flight data recorder (FDR), manufactured by L-3 Communications, model FA-2100, was recovered and forwarded to the NTSB Vehicle Recorder Laboratory for download. The FDR recording contained approximately 108 hours of data. The incident flight was the last flight on the recording and its duration was approximately 4 hours, 13 minutes. The flight crew stated that the captain was the pilot flying and the first officer was the pilot monitoring. The captain stated that, once he turned off the autopilot while on the approach to runway 25L, he thought "the winds seemed a little stronger…" than what was reported, and it felt "a little squirrelly." He said he initiated the flare within about 20 feet above the ground and pitched up for the flare, but stated he did not feel any pitch response, so he brought the nose up a little more to arrest the descent. Upon initial touchdown, he estimated that the airplane bounced about 5-10 feet back into the air. On the subsequent touchdown, the airplane's tail struck the runway. Postaccident investigation revealed substantial damage to the underbelly and aft bulkhead area. The skin was abraded over a large area through its thickness in several areas of the pressure vessel . One frame was fractured along with several fractured shear ties and frame clips. 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).
- — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Landing flare-Capability exceeded
- C Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action sequence-Pilot - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2013_DCA13FA071.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 (autopilot). Sourced from NASA NTRS, NTSB Safety Studies, FAA CAMI, AOPA Air Safety Institute, Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons, arXiv, and the Semantic Scholar academic graph.
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint
ROSflight 2.0: Lean ROS 2-Based Autopilot for Unmanned Aerial Vehicles
ROSflight is a lean, open-source autopilot ecosystem for unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Designed by researchers for researchers, it is built to lower the barrier to entry to UAV research and acceler…
- arXiv 2025 · arXiv preprint
ROSplane 2.0: A Fixed-Wing Autopilot for Research
Unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) research requires the integration of cutting-edge technology into existing autopilot frameworks.
- arXiv 2024 · arXiv preprint
A Data-Driven Autopilot for Fixed-Wing Aircraft Based on Model Predictive Control
Autopilots for fixed-wing aircraft are typically designed based on linearized aerodynamic models consisting of stability and control derivatives obtained from wind-tunnel testing.
- arXiv 2022 · arXiv preprint
Experimental Flight Testing of a Fault-Tolerant Adaptive Autopilot for Fixed-Wing Aircraft
This paper presents an adaptive autopilot for fixed-wing aircraft and compares its performance with a fixed-gain autopilot.
- arXiv 2021 · arXiv preprint
An Adaptive Digital Autopilot for Fixed-Wing Aircraft with Actuator Faults
This paper develops an adaptive digital autopilot for a fixed-wing aircraft and compares its performance with a fixed-gain autopilot.
- arXiv 2020 · arXiv preprint
Reinforcement Learning for Robust Missile Autopilot Design
Designing missiles' autopilot controllers has been a complex task, given the extensive flight envelope and the nonlinear flight dynamics.
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗