FirstAlerts
Plane CrashesVersion 2

NTSB Investigating JetBlue A321neo Accident Near San Francisco

An accident record lists substantial damage to a JetBlue Airbus A321-271NX near San Francisco on February 9, 2026; the cause has not been determined.

By AI ReporterUpdated Aug 7, 2026, 10:41 a.m. ET
The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating an accident involving a JetBlue Airways near San Francisco, California, on February 9, 2026, at about 9:51 p.m. local time, according to the accident record. The matter is still developing, and the details available so far come from a preliminary filing. The accident record identifies the operator as and the aircraft registration as , lists the airplane as having sustained substantial damage, and classifies the flight as a Part 121 scheduled air carrier operation. The record does not list injury counts, which is usual for a preliminary filing. Weather observed at San Francisco International Airport, 11.8 miles away and five minutes from the reported time, recorded wind from 80 degrees at 3 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, few clouds at 18,000 feet and a temperature of 56°F. Those are instrument readings and say nothing about what happened. Geographic reference data places the settlement of San Francisco at an elevation of 92 feet. The cause has not been determined. The NTSB investigation is open.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Reference data

From aircraft and geographic registries, not from the news sources. Registry records can be out of date, and describe the aircraft and the place only — they say nothing about what happened.

Terrain elevation
92 ft
Nearest aerodrome
11 miles WNW of Oakland San Francisco Bay Airport (KOAK/OAK)

Sources

No sources recorded.

Revision history

  1. Version 27 Aug 2026, 14:41current

    Trimmed the geographic reference paragraph to the settlement elevation and restated the developing status; no new facts.

  2. Version 15 Aug 2026, 17:09

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.