NTSB CAROL · Event
Event DCA17LA145
Registry · N315DN
FAA Aircraft Registry record.
Make / Model
AIRBUS SAS A321-213
Year of manufacture
2016 · 1 years old at event
TCDS
A28NM · AIRBUS SAS
Engine
CFM INTL CFM56-5B2
Seats / Engines
199 seats · 2 engines
Last airworthiness date
20250129
ADS-B equipped
Yes — Mode-S A359BC
Registrant of record
BANK OF UTAH TRUSTEE
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The first officer's improper landing flare, which resulted in a hard, bounced landing, and the flight crew’s improper bounced landing recovery procedures.
Factual narrative
On June 23, 2017, about 1338 eastern daylight time, Delta Air Lines flight 800, an Airbus A321-211, N315DN, experienced a tail strike during landing on runway 26R at Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International Airport (ATL), Atlanta, Georgia. There were no injuries to the 199 passengers and crew onboard, and the airplane sustained substantial damage. The scheduled domestic passenger flight was operated under Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 121 from General Edward Lawrence Logan International Airport (BOS), Boston, Massachusetts, to ATL. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the landing. Review of flight data recorder data showed that the airplane descended below 2,000 ft agl at 1335:55; the autopilot was not engaged, and the autothrottle was engaged. At 1337:58, the airplane's pitch began increasing from 2° airplane nose up. At 1338:03, the flare law mode activated. At 1338:04.2, the cockpit voice recorder recorded the automated alert "TWENTY" as the airplane passed through 20 ft agl. The captain instructed the first officer to bring the nose up three times between this alert and runway contact. At 1338:06, the autothrottle disengaged. At 1338:07, both main landing gear weight on wheels (WOW) switches transitioned from air to ground. At that time, the airspeed was about 130 kts, the pitch was about 6.2° airplane nose up, the wings were level, and the airplane experienced its greatest vertical acceleration of 1.89 g. About 1 second later, the spoilers deployed, and the main landing gear WOW switches transitioned to air. The cockpit voice recorder recorded an automated alert of "PITCH PITCH" at 1338:08.6, followed by the captain instructing the first officer to lower the nose. At 1338:09, the main landing gear WOW switches transitioned back to ground and stayed in that state. About the time of the second WOW ground indication, the maximum pitch of 9.7° airplane nose up and a vertical acceleration of 1.65 g were recorded. The cockpit voice recorder recorded an automated alert of "DUAL INPUT" at 1338:10. The flight data recorder showed longitudinal and lateral control stick inputs on the captain's stick for about 3 seconds beginning about 1338:07.5. The nose landing gear WOW status transitioned to ground at 1338:12, and the airplane decelerated using brakes, spoilers, and thrust reversers. The first officer was on her third day of initial operating experience training and was the pilot flying for the flight; the captain, a check airman, was the pilot monitoring. The first officer reported that this was her fourth landing in an A320-series airplane and her first landing in an A321 model. According to the captain and first officer, the flight was cleared for the visual approach, the approach was stable, and wind was out of the southwest at 12 kts with gusts up to 20 kts. The first officer recalled that the captain instructed her to "pull back pull back" before touchdown. Both pilots reported that the landing was “firm.” The first officer stated that after landing, the captain provided feedback that she flared a little low (near 20 ft above ground level [agl] instead of 30 ft agl) and did not provide enough pitch back on the side stick. Both crewmembers reported that the first officer was late to flare on previous landings. A company pilot who was seated in the cockpit jumpseat reported the captain was providing instruction to the first officer during the flight about the nuances of the A321. He stated that the descent and arrival were uneventful up until the flare and that the first officer “never really performed any type of flare maneuver even as the captain repeatedly called for the F/O to perform one." Subsequent preflight inspection of the airplane by the next flight crew revealed an area of abrasion damage to the aft fuselage about 13 ft long by 2 ft wide affecting two skin panels. The fuselage skin was abraded through in several areas with damage to the underlying stringers and frames. Several frames, stringers, and shear clips were also bent and/or fractured. 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-Copilot
- — Personnel issues-Action/decision-Action-Incorrect action sequence-Flight crew
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2017_DCA17LA145.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 ↗