Amazon Cargo Jet Tried to Abort Unsteady Landing Before Deadly Miami Crash, Flight Data Shows
What began as a routine cargo flight from Puerto Rico to Miami ended in one of the most devastating aviation accidents in South Florida in recent memory.
An Amazon Air cargo aircraft operated by 21 Air overran a runway at Miami International Airport on September 6, 2026, striking vehicles on the ground and killing five people. Now, newly released information from federal investigators is beginning to reveal what happened during the final seconds before the crash.
According to the National Transportation Safety Board, cockpit and flight-data recordings indicate that the Boeing 767 was approaching the runway at excessive speed, touched down, and then appeared to initiate a last-second attempt to abort the landing.
The maneuver, known in aviation as a go-around, is a standard safety procedure. When a landing is no longer considered safe, pilots can add engine power, climb away from the runway and attempt another approach.
But in this case, the available data suggests the decision came extremely late.
The aircraft had already touched down. Its brakes had been applied and then released. The throttles were subsequently increased to a setting consistent with go-around thrust before the pilots reduced power and reapplied the brakes. The aircraft then left the paved runway area.
The NTSB emphasized that the information remains preliminary and could change as investigators continue their work.
Still, the findings provide a remarkable glimpse into the final moments of Flight 7598.
A Routine Flight Turns Into a Disaster
The aircraft was a Boeing 767-33A operated by Miami-based 21 Air on behalf of Amazon Air. It was flying from San Juan, Puerto Rico, to Miami International Airport on the afternoon of September 6.
The flight itself was not unusual. Cargo aircraft arrive and depart from Miami throughout the day, transporting thousands of packages and commercial goods across the country and internationally.
But as Flight 7598 approached Miami, the situation became increasingly difficult.
According to information later recovered from the cockpit voice recorder, one of the pilots repeatedly warned that the aircraft was moving too quickly. About one minute and 42 seconds before the end of the recording, a pilot cautioned that the plane was too fast. The pilot continued making comments about the aircraft's excessive speed throughout the remainder of the recording.
That detail is now one of the central questions in the investigation.
Why was the aircraft still traveling so fast so close to the runway?
And once the pilots recognized the problem, why was the decision to go around made only after touchdown?
Investigators will have to reconstruct the sequence second by second before they can answer those questions.
The Final Approach
The NTSB has released a preliminary timeline from the cockpit voice recorder.
About four minutes before the end of the recording, the crew checked in with Miami tower and received clearance to land on Runway 30.
As the aircraft descended, the pilots configured the airplane for landing by progressively extending its flaps and lowering the landing gear.
But approximately one minute and 42 seconds before the end of the recording, one pilot warned that the aircraft was too fast.
The warnings continued.
The cockpit's automated warning system also issued a series of alerts, including calls associated with sink rate, minimums and terrain. Some terrain warnings were repeated during the approach.
Those details do not, by themselves, establish exactly why the approach became unstable. Aviation accidents are rarely caused by a single isolated event. Investigators typically examine weather, aircraft configuration, speed, altitude, runway conditions, crew communications, air-traffic-control instructions, mechanical systems and human decision-making.
In this case, all of those factors are likely to receive careful attention.
The Aircraft Touched Down
The NTSB's flight-data recorder provides an even more precise picture.
Approximately 30 seconds before the end of the FDR recording, the aircraft's nose and right main landing gear touched down at a groundspeed of about 158 knots.
Braking began shortly afterward, when the aircraft was traveling about 146 knots.
The left main landing gear touched down approximately 19 seconds before the recording ended at a groundspeed of about 134 knots.
Those numbers demonstrate just how much speed the aircraft still carried during the landing sequence.
Then came the critical moment.
Approximately 15 seconds before the end of the FDR recording, the brakes were released and the throttles were increased to a setting consistent with go-around thrust.
That strongly suggests the crew was attempting to reject the landing.
But the maneuver did not succeed.
Only four seconds later, the throttles were reduced to idle and the brakes were reapplied. At that point, the aircraft was still moving at about 117 knots.
The plane continued off the runway.
The FDR recorded significant changes in acceleration, with the aircraft still moving at approximately 96 knots.
The recording finally ended with a groundspeed of about 65 knots.
The NTSB said there was no indication in the recorded data that the aircraft's speed brakes or thrust reversers had been deployed.
A Go-Around Came Too Late
In ordinary circumstances, a go-around is one of aviation's most important safety tools.
A pilot does not have to continue an unsafe landing.
If the aircraft is too high, too low, too fast, misaligned with the runway or affected by unexpected weather, the crew can increase power and climb away rather than force the airplane onto the ground.
But a go-around has to be initiated while there is enough time and space to perform it safely.
That is why the timing of the decision in Miami is so important.
The cockpit voice recorder indicates that one of the pilots called for a go-around about 15 seconds before the end of the recording, while the FDR shows the throttles were increased in a manner consistent with go-around thrust.
Yet the plane had already touched down.
The aircraft therefore had only a very short window to transition from landing to climbing away.
Instead, the sequence changed again. The throttles were reduced to idle, braking resumed and the aircraft continued moving rapidly toward the end of the runway.
What caused that change in strategy is one of the questions investigators will need to answer.
Five People Were Killed on the Ground
The tragedy did not end with the aircraft leaving the runway.
The Boeing 767 continued beyond the paved surface and struck a Ford Econoline van used by an aviation cleaning company.
Seven people were inside the van.
Five died.
Authorities identified the victims as Rolando Aleman Leon, 55; Yoel Rodriguez Naranjo, 53; Julio C. Pineda, 75; Carlos Acosta Fajardo, 53; and Javierkys Reyes Quevedo, 47.
The five victims were not passengers aboard the aircraft.
They were people working on the ground.
That fact has added another heartbreaking dimension to the investigation, because the people who died were simply carrying out their jobs when an aircraft crossed into their path.
The aircraft also struck a vehicle beyond the airport perimeter.
Five people were injured in the overall crash, while the two pilots survived and were later released from the hospital.
For families waiting for loved ones to come home, the afternoon that began like any other workday suddenly became a life-changing tragedy.
The Wreckage Told Its Own Story
Investigators arriving at the crash site found extensive destruction.
The airplane traveled roughly 1,300 feet beyond the runway before coming to rest. It crossed through areas beyond the runway and damaged vehicles in the process.
NTSB Chair Jennifer Homendy described the scene in stark terms during an early briefing, noting extensive debris and severe damage to both the aircraft and the vehicles involved.
The airplane ultimately came to rest with its nose down and tail elevated, while parts of the aircraft and vehicles were scattered around the area.
For accident investigators, a crash site like this becomes an enormous puzzle.
Every piece of debris can potentially tell a story.
The position of aircraft components can help investigators reconstruct movement. Tire marks can show braking and direction. Damage patterns can provide clues about speed and impact angles. Electronic systems can reveal what the aircraft was doing in the moments before the accident.
But all of those pieces must be examined together.
The Black Boxes Are Providing Crucial Evidence
The NTSB recovered both major flight recorders from the wreckage: the cockpit voice recorder and the flight data recorder.
They were transported to the agency's Vehicle Recorder Laboratory in Washington, where investigators successfully read them.
The cockpit voice recorder contained more than two hours of high-quality audio across four channels.
The flight data recorder contained approximately 54 hours of information and recorded more than 400 parameters.
These devices are critical because they allow investigators to move beyond eyewitness accounts and speculation.
The cockpit recorder can show what pilots said, what warnings they heard and how communication unfolded in the cockpit.
The flight-data recorder can reveal speed, altitude, aircraft configuration, engine settings, braking and numerous other technical parameters.
Together, they can provide a detailed timeline.
In this case, the recorders have already established that the aircraft was traveling at high speed, that braking was initially applied, that power was increased in a manner consistent with an attempted go-around and that the plane ultimately left the runway.
But those recordings cannot automatically explain why the crew made each decision.
That requires human testimony and a much broader investigation.
Investigators Still Need to Interview the Pilots
The pilots survived the crash, making their testimony potentially one of the most valuable pieces of evidence still to come.
Investigators need to understand exactly what the crew saw, what they expected to happen and how they interpreted the rapidly changing situation.
A cockpit recording can show what was said, but it cannot always reveal what a pilot was thinking.
For example, a pilot may recognize an unsafe approach but believe the airplane can still be stopped safely. Another pilot may believe a go-around should begin immediately.
Those decisions can unfold in only a few seconds.
The investigators will therefore compare the pilots' accounts with the recorder data, air-traffic-control communications, weather information and aircraft performance.
The goal is not simply to determine what happened.
It is to determine why it happened.
Weather May Become Another Important Question
The weather around Miami at the time of the crash is also expected to be examined closely.
Stormy conditions and changing winds can create difficult landing environments, particularly for large aircraft.
A strong tailwind, for example, can increase groundspeed even when an aircraft's indicated airspeed appears within an expected range.
Higher groundspeed means less runway remains available after touchdown because the aircraft is covering more distance every second.
That does not mean weather caused the crash.
It simply means investigators must determine exactly what conditions existed and how those conditions affected the aircraft's performance.
The NTSB has not announced a final cause.
At this stage, assigning blame to weather, pilots, equipment or airport design would go beyond the evidence currently available.
Questions About the Runway
Another issue attracting attention is what happened beyond the end of the runway.
Investigators are examining whether additional infrastructure could have reduced the severity of the crash.
One technology that may become part of that discussion is an Engineered Materials Arresting System, commonly known as EMAS.
EMAS uses specially engineered material designed to slow or stop an aircraft that leaves the runway.
Not every U.S. airport has such a system, and the absence of one at Miami is not itself proof that the accident could have been prevented.
Still, the NTSB has indicated that the issue is part of its investigation.
That raises a broader aviation-safety question:
When an aircraft cannot stop before the end of a runway, how much protection should exist beyond the pavement?
The answer depends on runway length, surrounding terrain, airport design, available technology and many other factors.
The Amazon Connection Has Drawn Attention
Because the aircraft was operating as an Amazon Air flight, the crash immediately attracted widespread attention.
However, the airplane itself was operated by 21 Air, a separate cargo airline that flies freight for customers including Amazon.
That distinction matters when discussing the investigation.
Federal investigators are examining the operation of the specific flight, the crew, the airplane, the airline's procedures and other relevant factors rather than simply treating the event as an "Amazon plane crash."
Amazon has expressed condolences to the families and said it is cooperating with investigators.
The focus now is on understanding exactly how a cargo aircraft arriving safely enough to reach the runway could nevertheless travel thousands of feet beyond it.
Why the New Data Matters
The most striking revelation is not simply that a go-around was attempted.
It is how late that attempt appears to have happened.
The cockpit voice recorder indicates a pilot called for the maneuver roughly 15 seconds before the recording ended.
The flight-data recorder indicates that the throttles were increased to a setting consistent with go-around thrust.
But the aircraft was already on the runway, and only seconds later the crew reduced power and resumed braking.
That sequence shows how quickly the situation deteriorated.
It also illustrates why aviation investigators pay such close attention to the timing of decisions.
In aviation, seconds matter.
A decision made five or ten seconds earlier can mean the difference between remaining airborne and touching down. A decision to go around while sufficient runway remains may be routine. The same decision made after touchdown and deep into a runway can become much more complicated.
But again, investigators have not concluded that any individual decision caused the crash.
That determination comes later.
The Human Cost Remains the Most Important Part
Behind every investigation statistic are real people.
Five workers lost their lives.
Their families are now dealing with questions that no official report can undo.
Colleagues lost friends and coworkers.
The airport community was forced to confront the danger that exists when aircraft and ground operations occupy the same complex environment.
For investigators, the technical details matter because preventing another tragedy depends on understanding what went wrong.
For families, however, the central fact is much simpler.
Five people went to work and did not come home.
What Happens Next?
The NTSB investigation is ongoing.
Investigators will continue examining the airplane, reviewing the cockpit recordings, reconstructing the approach and studying the aircraft's performance.
The agency is also expected to compare the information from the recorders with weather records, air-traffic-control communications, maintenance documentation, training information and other evidence.
A preliminary report is expected in the coming weeks, but a final determination of probable cause can take considerably longer.
That is normal in major aviation investigations.
The first findings often answer some questions while raising many more.
And as investigators reconstruct each second of the flight, additional information could change the way the public understands the crash.
For now, the clearest picture is this:
A Boeing 767 cargo jet approaching Miami International Airport was traveling at high speed during its landing approach.
A pilot repeatedly expressed concern about that speed.
The plane touched down.
Brakes were applied.
Then, apparently in an attempt to reject the landing, the throttles were increased to go-around power.
But the aircraft was already too far into the landing sequence to successfully become airborne again.
Power was reduced.
Braking resumed.
The aircraft continued off the runway, striking vehicles and killing five people on the ground.
The NTSB stresses that these findings are preliminary.
There may be additional factors that emerge as the investigation continues.
And that is why the coming days and weeks will be closely watched by aviation experts, investigators and the families affected by the tragedy.
The most important question is no longer simply what happened?
Investigators now have a much clearer answer to that.
The harder question is why did it happen?
That answer will require far more than a few seconds of recorder data.
It will require the entire story.
The investigation is still developing, and officials have cautioned that the early findings could change. More details are expected as investigators complete interviews and analyze the remaining evidence.
Story linked in the comments. 👇
0 Comments:
Enregistrer un commentaire