The final moments of Amazon Prime Air Flight 7598 are starting to come into focus, and the picture emerging from the cockpit recorder is raising some difficult questions about what happened before the Boeing 767 ran off the runway at Miami International Airport.
One of the pilots repeatedly commented on the aircraft’s speed during the final one minute and 42 seconds of the cockpit voice recording, according to the National Transportation Safety Board. At the same time, the aircraft’s warning system issued several alerts as the crew approached the runway.
Then, only 15 seconds before the recording ended, a pilot called for the landing to be aborted.
Engine power increased as the crew began what appeared to be a go-around. Four seconds later, however, the throttles were brought back to idle.
By then, the aircraft had very little runway left.
The Boeing 767-33A ultimately overran Runway 30 at Miami International Airport on September 6 and struck two vehicles. Five people were killed and five others were injured. Both pilots survived and are now expected to provide investigators with important information about the decisions made inside the cockpit.
The NTSB has not determined what caused the crash.
The Crew Was Already Talking About Speed
The newly released cockpit voice recorder information adds an important detail to the timeline.
During the final 102 seconds of the recording, one of the pilots repeatedly commented about the aircraft’s excessive speed. The NTSB has not identified which pilot made those comments, but investigators said there was no consistent verbal response from the other crew member.
That exchange could become an important part of the investigation.
A fast approach does not automatically lead to a runway overrun, but excessive speed dramatically changes the amount of runway required to stop an aircraft. It can also leave crews with less time to correct an unstable approach or decide to go around.
In this case, the speed concern was apparently recognized before touchdown.
The aircraft’s automated warning system also became active during the approach. The system announced “too low, terrain” several times, while two “sink rate” warnings were also recorded.
Investigators will now have to establish exactly what the crew saw and heard, how they interpreted those warnings, and whether the aircraft’s approach met the operator’s criteria for a stable landing.
Those details matter because the accident was not simply a case of an aircraft touching down and failing to stop.
The crew appears to have been dealing with an unstable and rapidly changing situation before the wheels reached the runway.
The Landing Gear Touched Down Unevenly
Flight data provides an even more detailed picture of the landing.
Approximately 30 seconds before the end of the recording, the Boeing 767’s nose gear and right main landing gear touched down at a groundspeed of 158 knots.
The wheel brakes were not applied immediately. They were recorded approximately seven seconds later, when the aircraft’s speed had fallen to 146 knots.
More importantly, the left main landing gear did not touch the runway until approximately 19 seconds before the end of the recording.
That means there was a substantial gap between the initial touchdown and the aircraft settling fully onto the runway.
The aircraft was traveling at about 134 knots when the left main gear finally made contact.
That sequence could prove significant because several of the aircraft’s normal landing deceleration systems depend on the aircraft being firmly on the ground.
The NTSB has said there was no indication in the recorded data that the speed brakes or thrust reversers were deployed.
It remains unclear whether the aircraft’s landing configuration, the delayed left-main-gear touchdown, crew actions, or another factor affected the use of those systems.
A Go-Around Was Started — Then Abandoned
The most striking part of the flight-data sequence comes after the aircraft was already on the runway.
At approximately 15 seconds before the end of the cockpit voice recording, a pilot called for the landing to be aborted.
Engine power was increased to a level consistent with go-around thrust. At that point, the aircraft was traveling at approximately 120 knots.
But the maneuver did not continue.
Roughly four seconds later, the throttles were pulled back to idle. The wheel brakes were applied again, with the aircraft traveling at approximately 117 knots.
That left the crew trying to slow a heavy cargo aircraft at high speed with the runway rapidly disappearing behind it.
The NTSB’s flight data then recorded changes in lateral, longitudinal and vertical acceleration. Investigators also identified sounds consistent with the aircraft leaving the paved runway surface.
The final recorded speed was approximately 65 knots.
That four-second window between increasing power and returning the throttles to idle is likely to receive considerable attention from investigators.
Why was the go-around initiated after touchdown?
Why was it abandoned almost immediately?
And, most importantly, what was happening with the aircraft at that moment?
Those questions cannot be answered from the flight-data recorder alone.
Why Were The Speed Brakes And Reversers Not Recorded?
Large commercial aircraft have several layers of deceleration available after landing.
Wheel brakes are only one part of the equation. Spoilers or speed brakes reduce lift and transfer more weight onto the landing gear, increasing the effectiveness of the wheel brakes. Thrust reversers can also help reduce forward speed.
The NTSB has found no indication that the Boeing 767 used its speed brakes or thrust reversers during the landing sequence.
That does not necessarily mean those systems malfunctioned.
Their deployment, availability and relationship to the aircraft’s touchdown sequence will all need to be established before investigators can determine their significance.
The delayed touchdown of the left main gear stands out here.
For roughly 11 seconds after the nose and right main gear touched down, the aircraft was not fully supported on all three landing-gear assemblies. Investigators will examine whether that affected the normal activation or use of the aircraft’s deceleration systems.
The 32-year-old Boeing 767 is also being examined as part of the investigation, including its braking, spoiler and thrust-reverser systems.
Miami’s Runway Left Little Room For Error
Runway 30 also became a critical part of the accident sequence.
Miami International Airport has four runways, and Runway 12/30 has the shortest landing distance available, at less than 8,000 feet.
Once the aircraft had traveled through a significant portion of that runway at high speed, the options for recovery became increasingly limited.
There is a runway safety area beyond the pavement, but it does not have an Engineered Materials Arresting System, or EMAS.
EMAS is designed to stop or substantially slow an aircraft that overruns a runway. The system uses crushable material that absorbs energy as an aircraft moves into the arrestor bed.
Several major airports around the world use EMAS where available space, surrounding roads, terrain or other constraints make a conventional runway safety area less effective.
Miami’s runways were not equipped with the system because authorities had determined there was sufficient runoff space.
Whether that assessment should be reconsidered following this accident is likely to become part of the wider safety discussion.
It is too early, however, to say that EMAS would have prevented the five fatalities. The aircraft’s speed, trajectory and position when it left the runway would all have to be considered.
Lawsuit Claims A Series Of Failures
While federal investigators continue to build their case, the accident has also triggered a wrongful-death lawsuit.
Yaraisi Santiso Morejon filed the lawsuit in Miami-Dade County Circuit Court following the death of her husband, 53-year-old Yoel Rodriguez Naranjo, who was in a vehicle struck by the aircraft.
The complaint names Amazon.com Inc., Amazon Air Cargo, 21 Air LLC and the two pilots as defendants.
It alleges that the accident was preventable and points to alleged failures involving pilot performance, training, supervision and the operation of the aircraft.
The lawsuit also raises questions about the age and condition of the Boeing 767, including systems related to braking, spoilers and thrust reversers.
Those claims have not been established as facts by investigators.
21 Air has said it is cooperating with the NTSB, the Federal Aviation Administration and local authorities. Amazon has also said it will cooperate with the investigation and continue working with 21 Air.
The legal proceedings and the NTSB investigation are separate processes, and the eventual findings could differ substantially from the allegations contained in the lawsuit.
Who Was Flying The Boeing 767?
The backgrounds of the two pilots are also being examined.
The captain, 55, had approximately 7,145 flight hours and received his Boeing 767 type rating in May 2026. The first officer, 37, had about 2,655 flight hours and received his 767 rating in April 2025.
The accident occurred during the crew’s third flight of the day.
The aircraft had previously flown from Cincinnati to Miami and then from Miami to San Juan before returning to Miami for the accident flight.
Again, none of those details establishes that fatigue, experience or training contributed to the crash. Investigators will need to examine the crew’s schedules, training, operating procedures and cockpit workload before drawing conclusions.
The Cockpit Recording Could Hold The Biggest Clue
The NTSB now has access to both the cockpit voice recorder and flight-data recorder, giving investigators the ability to compare what the pilots were saying with what the aircraft was actually doing.
That comparison could be crucial.
The flight data shows a high-speed touchdown, delayed contact by the left main landing gear, braking, a brief increase in engine power consistent with a go-around, and then a return to idle thrust.
The cockpit recording adds another layer: repeated comments about excessive speed, multiple automated warnings and a late call to abort the landing.
Put together, those pieces provide a much clearer timeline of the final moments.
But they still do not provide the answer.
The central question facing investigators is how the crew went from recognizing excessive speed on approach to landing the aircraft, attempting to initiate a go-around, and then returning to a braking effort with so little runway remaining.
The surviving pilots’ interviews will be particularly important. Their accounts may explain what they saw, what they believed the aircraft was doing, why the approach continued and what prompted the last-second change in strategy.
For now, the Miami Boeing 767 crash remains an open investigation.
What is becoming increasingly clear, however, is that the accident unfolded through a series of decisions and warnings in the cockpit rather than in a single instant.
The next answers may come from the pilots themselves.
For more on similar developments, see: Amazon 767 Miami Crash: Black Boxes Hold Key Clues
Leave a Reply