DCA25LA015
2024-10-29 · Louisville, Kentucky, United States · None · 1 aircraft · Status: Completed
Airport SDF
Current FAA registration · N162UP
- Make / Model
- AIRBUS A300 F4-622R
- Year of manufacture
- 2005 · 19 years old at event
- Engine
- P & W PW4158
- Seats / Engines
- 380 seats · 2 engines
- Last airworthiness date
- 20050311
- ADS-B equipped
- Yes — Mode-S A0FAEC
Source: FAA Aircraft Registry (releasable master file).
Aircraft involved
Probable cause & findings
The pilot’s incorrect pitch attitude during a bounced landing which resulted in a tailstrike.
Factual narrative
On October 29, 2024, about 1155 eastern daylight time, United Parcel Service (UPS) Company flight 2909 sustained a tailstrike while landing at Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport (SDF), Louisville, KY. According to the flight crew, the captain was the pilot flying, and the first officer (FO) was the pilot monitoring (PM) when they were cleared for the instrument landing system (ILS) approach to runway 17R at SDF. The airplane was in the landing configuration and on a stabilized approach at 1,000 ft. and 500 ft. above ground level (AGL) respectively per company procedure. After the 500 ft stable callout by the PM, the auto pilot was disengaged and the approach continued with a normal descent rate and the autothrottles engaged. At about 20 ft AGL, power was reduced, and the flare was initiated. The touchdown felt normal, and the PM vocalized the spoiler deployment. Subsequently, the thrust reversers were deployed. The airplane bounced; however, due to the deployment of the thrust reversers a go-around was prohibited. The airplane settled back on the runway and was slowed for taxi. During the taxi, air traffic control advised the flight crew of a possible tailstrike. After the tailstrike, the remainder of the landing rollout and taxi were uneventful. A review of flight data recorder data showed that after the initial touchdown due to excessive energy, the airplane bounced followed by a firm landing. As the airplane’s shock absorber rebounded from the firm landing a nose-up control column was applied and the pitch angle began to increase. Simultaneously, the ground spoilers and thrust reversers continued to deploy, which exacerbated the nose-high attitude and resulted in a pitch angle of about 12 degrees. According to Airbus, after touchdown the flight crew should fly the nosewheel smoothly, but without delay on to the runway, and must be ready to counteract any pitch up effect of the ground spoilers and reverse thrust. The tailstrike resulted in abrasion damage along the aft lower fuselage. An inspection revealed substantial damage to the frames. Source: NTSB Aviation Accident Database Retrieved: 2026-02-12
NTSB Findings
FAA avdata. C = Cause, F = Factor.
- — Aircraft-Aircraft oper/perf/capability-Performance/control parameters-Pitch control-Not attained/maintained
- — Personnel issues-Task performance-Use of equip/info-Aircraft control-Pilot
Verbatim from NTSB's published report. Source file
NTSB_2024_DCA25LA015.txt.
Findings + structured fields enriched from FAA avall.mdb.
Full investigation docket on
data.ntsb.gov ↗.
Search this event elsewhere
External sources are reported, not agency: signal that something happened, not fact about what happened.
- TallyAero Live Wire Aviation press
- NTSB CAROL Agency ↗
- NTSB Docket Agency ↗
- Aviation Safety Network Aviation press ↗
- Kathryn's Report Aviation press ↗
- Aviation Herald Aviation press ↗
- AVweb Aviation press ↗
- Pilots of America Community ↗
- Reddit /r/flying Community ↗
- FlightAware Aviation press ↗
- AOPA accident database Aviation press ↗
- Google News News ↗
- DuckDuckGo News ↗
Related research
Matched on aircraft type or causal vocabulary (go-around). All research papers
- 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…