On November 4, 2025, UPS Airlines Flight 2976, a McDonnell Douglas MD-11F cargo plane with tail number N259UP, crashed shortly after takeoff from Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport en route to Honolulu. The aircraft erupted into a massive fireball on impact, igniting nearby industrial buildings, including a petroleum recycling facility. All three crew members on board were killed, along with at least six people on the ground. Eleven others on the ground were injured. As of this publication, many people are still reported missing in the area. The number of fatalities is expected to rise as the crash site is secured.
Our deepest condolences and sympathies go out to those who have been impacted by this tragedy.
The Accident
Multiple videos show the aircraft struggling to gain altitude, with a fire burning near the left engine, before impacting buildings just off the end of the runway. ADS-B tracking data show that the aircraft reached a speed of 184 knots before hitting the ground.
One key question investigators are already examining is the role of a possible mechanical failure, specifically the left engine, in causing the crash. Video evidence indicates the aircraft took off with an uncontained engine failure at the number 1 engine. If the engine suffered an uncontained failure, internal engine parts rotating at high speed break apart and breach the engine casing, cowlings, and potentially can slice through fuel and critical hydraulic or electrical control systems. In fact, preliminary analysis of debris and witness video seems to indicate that the left engine completely separated from the wing during the takeoff roll.
This raises serious questions about product defects or maintenance lapses.
Depending on what the NTSB finds, Boeing (which now owns McDonnell Douglas’s legacy designs, such as the MD-11 aircraft involved in this accident) or the engine manufacturer could face product liability claims if a design or production defect caused the fire, engine failure, or separation.
Similarly, if evidence of negligent maintenance emerges, UPS and its maintenance subcontractors could be found liable for negligence.
Failure to Climb
Another focus of the investigation is why the aircraft was unable to climb away from the runway. Even with one engine inoperative, a properly functioning MD-11 should be capable of climbing and returning to land on its two remaining engines.
It appears that the fire occurred at or just after V1 speed, the critical decision speed on the takeoff roll beyond which aborting the take-off is no longer safe. Once this airspeed is called-out the crew was committed to continue the takeoff despite the engine failure. Airliners are specifically engineered for this scenario: after V1, even with one engine out, the aircraft must have enough performance to climb out safely on the remaining engine(s), remain clear of all obstacles, and return to land.
Captain Christopher Rusing, ALG attorney and international airline pilot at a United States air carrier, explained,
“the Federal Regulations governing UPS Flight 2976 require the aircraft be able to experience a total loss of power from one if its engines at takeoff decision speed, V1, and continue the takeoff clearing the end of the runway by at least 50 feet, continue the flight and remain clear of obstacles by 50 feet vertically and 200 feet horizontally within the airport boundaries. Clearly, the aircraft’s takeoff performance is affected by more than the loss of just the number 1 engine.”
There are early indications in video evidence that the number 2 engine, or the engine located in the tail of the aircraft, may have ingested parts from the number 1 engine’s uncontained failure. There is video evidence of a flame exiting the number 2 engine as the aircraft struggled to become airborne. If there was a subsequent loss of power, this would explain why the aircraft was not able to continue its climb after takeoff.
Many aspects of the UPS Flight 2976 crash echo the infamous 1979 American Airlines Flight 191 disaster at Chicago’s O’Hare Airport, in which the left engine also completely separated from the wing. The crew lost control of the aircraft and crashed shortly after the failure. It is notable that DC-10 in AA-191 was able to gain altitude and climb away from the airport before the damage caused to the aircraft’s hydraulic system caused the leading-edge slats on the front of the left wing to retract, resulting in a loss of lift on that wing, resulting in an uncontrollable roll. Investigators of AA-191 identified vulnerabilities in the DC-10’s engine-pylon attachments and in its leading-edge slat system that contributed to the loss of control. Subsequently, changes were made to address those issues.
The MD-11 involved in UPS 2976 is a direct descendant of the DC-10/MD-10 design. The MD-11, however, incorporated extensive safety improvements implemented after the AA191 accident. For example, stronger engine-mount structures were adopted, and fail-safes (such as relief valves to prevent slats from retracting if hydraulic lines are severed) were added to ensure an engine separation or fire would not render the aircraft uncontrollable. Therefore, it is exceedingly puzzling that the UPS 2976 was unable to climb away from the airport after the left engine failed. It is notable that the aircraft did not seem to roll significantly, like AA-191.
Legal Consideration
Liability determination will likely be complex and hinge on the findings of the investigation. It is far too early to draw any conclusions, but in major air disasters, potentially responsible parties often include the aircraft operator, maintenance contractors or personnel who serviced the aircraft, and the aircraft and engine manufacturers. Further, the carrier could face liability if any negligence in its operations, pilot training, or maintenance contributed to the crash.
With regard to the crew of Flight 2976, many states worker’s compensation laws can prevent those families suing the employer for negligence if their loved ones were killed in the course of their employment. Instead, the crew families might look for third-party liability claims, for example, suing a manufacturer or parts supplier, if a defect in the aircraft or engine is found to be a cause.
Ground victims (employees of other businesses or bystanders) and their families, on the other hand, are not limited by worker’s compensation, and they may bring negligence or product liability claims against the carrier, manufacturer, and other entities involved.
Property owners and businesses that suffered damage (such as the warehouse and the two destroyed commercial buildings) may also have claims for property loss and business interruption.
Ongoing Investigation
As the focus shifts from emergency response to investigation, a thorough fact-finding mission is underway. The NTSB has dispatched a large “go-team” of investigators (reportedly at least 28 personnel) to Louisville to collect evidence and analyze what went wrong. They have begun securing pieces of the wreckage across the wide debris field, including the engines, flight data recorder, cockpit voice recorder, and any fragments that broke off during the short flight. Investigators have urged the public in Louisville to assist by not touching any debris that might have fallen onto private property; even small parts can provide critical clues, and touching them could hinder the investigation. The NTSB board is expected to hold a public briefing soon to share initial observations.
Investigators will likely analyze maintenance records for the airframe and engines, pilot training and performance, and the ATC recordings from Louisville tower. The cockpit voice recorder (CVR), if recovered intact, may reveal whether the pilots had any time to diagnose the emergency or communicate before the crash. Initial indications are that any cockpit transmissions were very short; possibly, the pilots were struggling just to control the aircraft in its final seconds.
The flight data recorder (FDR) will give a second-by-second log of the aircraft’s speed, altitude, engine parameters, and control inputs, which should confirm the timeline (e.g. when the fire warning activated, whether throttle was reduced, etc.). These “black boxes” are considered crucial to unlocking the mystery of why a routine takeoff turned deadly in an instant.
In parallel with the NTSB, the FAA is conducting its own review and has imposed temporary flight restrictions at the UPS World Port facility to facilitate the investigation and recovery efforts. Boeing has engineers on standby to advise on any technical questions about the MD-11’s design and to examine the failed engine and systems alongside investigators.
Only after the NTSB approves can heavy machinery start clearing debris; even then, key pieces like engines and flight controls will be shipped to NTSB labs for detailed examination.
Because the plane struck industrial facilities and spilled fuel, environmental and structural assessments are being done. Specialists will ensure that any hazardous materials (including jet fuel and chemicals from the petroleum recycling center) are properly contained.
Moving forward, the NTSB will collect factual information in the field for the next week or more, then move to the analysis phase. A preliminary report from the NTSB is typically released within a few weeks of an accident, which may confirm basic facts (like which engine caught fire, and that the plane barely gained altitude) but will stop short of assigning cause. A full final report with analysis and safety recommendations can take 1–2 years.
The FAA and NTSB will also be evaluating whether any safety directives need to be issued to other cargo operators. For example, if a fleet-wide inspection or modification of certain engine components or systems on MD-11s (or similar aircraft) is warranted, they will communicate that promptly.
As the investigation into the UPS Flight 2976 tragedy unfolds, the search for answers will be long and complex. For families, employees, and business owners affected, understanding who may be legally responsible is essential to seeking justice and rebuilding. Our firm remains committed to monitoring the NTSB’s findings, regulatory developments, and any potential liability determinations.
If you or a loved one has been impacted by this disaster, our Aviation Law Group team is here to help you navigate the next steps with compassion and experience. We’ve represented victims and families in major airline and air carrier accidents nationwide. We’re ready to advocate for you.