NTSB CAROL · Event
Event DCA14LA137
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
the first officer's failure to maintain the correct airspeed and pitch attitude during landing that resulted in a tailstrike.
Factual narrative
On July 29, 2014, about 2240 pacific daylight time, United Airlines flight 345, a Boeing 757-222, N553UA, experienced a tailstrike while landing at the San Diego International Airport (SAN), San Diego, California. There were no injuries to the 174 persons onboard. The airplane sustained substantial damage. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), Houston, Texas, to SAN. According to the operator, the first officer (FO) was the pilot flying and the captain was the pilot monitoring. The accident flight was the second flight of the day for both crew members. The climb, cruise, and descent portions of the flight were uneventful. The airplane was configured for a flaps 30 landing with the autopilot off for the visual approach to runway 27. The target airspeed for the landing was 130 knots, 5 knots above VREF. An airplane performance study was completed based on the FDR data from the flight. The study showed the wind was constant during the final descent to the runway with about a 4-knot headwind component. At about 50 feet radio altitude, the FO began to gradually pull back on the column until the elevators deflected 12 degrees airplane nose up at touchdown. Touchdown occurred with a sink rate near 0, a pitch attitude of about 6 degrees and an airspeed of 120 knots (5 knots below VREF). After touchdown, thrust was commanded to idle and the speedbrakes were deployed. The FO then began to gradually release column backpressure; however, pitch attitude continued to increase towards the gear-struts-compressed tail strike pitch attitude. The airplane's pitch attitude eventually exceeded the gear struts compressed tail strike attitude of 10.5 degrees. The FO commanded reverse thrust as the tail strike occurred and then increased to maximum reverse thrust after derotation had occurred. Published Flight Operations Technical Bulletins issued by the manufacturer in 1988 and 1990 instructed pilots to immediately lower the nose after touchdown (i.e. apply forward pressure) and warned pilots that bleeding off airspeed below VREF prior to touchdown will increase body attitude and thereby increase the likelihood of a tail strike. In this accident, touchdown occurred about 5 knots below VREF and the nose-up elevator remained for nearly 3.5 seconds, causing the aft fuselage to contact the runway. Inspection of the airplane revealed substantial abrasion damage to two aft, lower skin panels spanning an area about 4 feet long by 1.5 feet wide. In addition, the forward and aft lower chords on the aft pressure bulkhead (APB) were deformed and the lower APB web was buckled. On July 29, 2014, about 2240 pacific daylight time, United Airlines flight 345, a Boeing 757-222, N553UA, experienced a tailstrike while landing at the San Diego International Airport (SAN), San Diego, California. There were no injuries to the 174 persons onboard. The airplane sustained substantial damage. The flight was operating under 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 121 as a regularly scheduled passenger flight from George Bush Intercontinental Airport (IAH), Houston, Texas, to SAN. According to the operator, the first officer (FO) was the pilot flying and the captain was the pilot monitoring. The accident flight was the second flight of the day for both crew members. The climb, cruise, and descent portions of the flight were uneventful. The airplane was configured for a flaps 30 landing with the autopilot off for the visual approach to runway 27. The target airspeed for the landing was 130 knots, 5 knots above VREF. An airplane performance study was completed based on the FDR data from the flight. The study showed the wind was constant during the final descent to the runway with about a 4-knot headwind component. At about 50 feet radio altitude, the FO began to gradually pull back on the column until the elevators deflected 12 degrees airplane nose up at touchdown. Touchdown occurred with a sink rate near 0, a pitch attitude of about 6 degrees and an airspeed of 120 knots (5 knots below VREF). After touchdown, thrust was commanded to idle and the speedbrakes were deployed. The FO then began to gradually release column backpressure; however, pitch attitude continued to increase towards the gear-struts-compressed tail strike pitch attitude. The airplane's pitch attitude eventually exceeded the gear struts compressed tail strike attitude of 10.5 degrees. The FO commanded reverse thrust as the tail strike occurred and then increased to maximum reverse thrust after derotation had occurred. Published Flight Operations Technical Bulletins issued by the manufacturer in 1988 and 1990 instructed pilots to immediately lower the nose after touchdown (i.e. apply forward pressure) and warned pilots that bleeding off airspeed below VREF prior to touchdown will increase body attitude and thereby increase the likelihood of a tail strike. In this accident, touchdown occurred about 5 knots below VREF and the nose-up elevator remained for nearly 3.5 seconds, causing the aft fuselage to contact the runway. Inspection of the airplane revealed substantial abrasion damage to two aft, lower skin panels spanning an area about 4 feet long by 1.5 feet wide. In addition, the forward and aft lower chords on the aft pressure bulkhead (APB) were deformed and the lower APB web was buckled. 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-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action performance-Pilot - C
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2014_DCA14LA137.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.
- Embry-Riddle Scholarly Commons 1993 · Journal article (JAAER)
A Cost Analysis: Re-Engining a Boeing 727-200 (Advanced) Versus Buying a New Boeing 757-200
The Boeing 727-200 and 757-200 are both narrowbody aircraft designed for short- to medium-range flights carrying 164 to 214 passengers.
- 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.
Browse the full corpus — academia portal ↗